R. Crapo

TL;DR: This study presents a meta-analysis of the Methacholine Challenge Pretest Questionnaire results to assess the response of the participants and recommend further studies to investigate its application in clinical practice.

TL;DR: A new Task Force on pulmonary function testing, implemented by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS), has recently started its work based on the ATS/ERS documents, with the hope that they will be accepted by other respiratory societies.

Abstract: Since 1979, guidelines for standardising pulmonary function tests have been published and updated by both the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 1–6 and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 7–9. In addition, several joint ATS/ERS workshops on pulmonary function testing have been held and the resulting reports published 10, 11. In 1995, European scientists participated in the ATS updates of standards for spirometry and single-breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacity of the lung ( D L,CO), but no joint statement has been published by the two societies. Although generally concordant, the spirometry and D L,CO guidelines published separately by the ATS and the ERS differed in some aspects that were of appreciable importance. Official guidelines for the measurement of lung volumes were made available by the ERS 7, 10, but not the ATS. In recent years, global initiatives were undertaken for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary diseases, and the worldwide market for instruments to test lung function widened considerably. This increased the pressure for more uniform pulmonary function testing across the world, and prompted the ATS and the ERS to appoint a joint Task Force to provide new combined standards for clinical pulmonary function testing, with the hope that they will be accepted by other respiratory societies. A new Task Force on pulmonary function testing, implemented by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS), has recently started its work based on the ATS/ERS documents. Our Task Force consisted of 19 scientists with recognised expertise in pulmonary function testing. The group worked on a “one-draft” system, in which each of five sections was assigned to a small subgroup and eventually discussed by the whole committee. There …