You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PFT Test Results
- Thread starter Alyssa
- Start date
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
rockingdog
New member
My understanding is that there are two different scales for measuring out there. I found this on the Internet.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
"In her lab, McQuaid uses the Morris-Polgar lung function reference values for pediatric patients and, for adults, Knudsen's values published in 1983."
The nurse in the research study I'm in once told me about this because my PFTs didnt' match with my doctor's office. They use different methods of calculating them.
You may want to ask what method they're using to calculate them.
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Great responses everyone -- very helpful -- we are switching from a pediatric center to an adult center 1300 miles away. The adult center is in a far less populated area so I was thinking their equipment might not be as new as the pediatric center in Seattle.
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
I'll know tomorrow evening if they are different.
Thanks again
Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but two CF clinics I've visited have told me different CF clinics can and do use different "expected outcomes" based on the region, etc. It all depends which they plug into their machines as to what the "predicted" should be for someone of your height, weight, race, etc.
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but two CF clinics I've visited have told me different CF clinics can and do use different "expected outcomes" based on the region, etc. It all depends which they plug into their machines as to what the "predicted" should be for someone of your height, weight, race, etc.
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but two CF clinics I've visited have told me different CF clinics can and do use different "expected outcomes" based on the region, etc. It all depends which they plug into their machines as to what the "predicted" should be for someone of your height, weight, race, etc.
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but two CF clinics I've visited have told me different CF clinics can and do use different "expected outcomes" based on the region, etc. It all depends which they plug into their machines as to what the "predicted" should be for someone of your height, weight, race, etc.
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
I dont' know why I would have been told something different than what ya'll mentioned, and I have no idea which of the "two" these clinics used, but I have the luxury of having my PFT reports all in hard copy in my filing cabinet and when I look, even though I'm at the same weight and height and age, the different clinics DO in fact predict me at very different numbers (even when I have similar liters). Odd. Actually, when comparing previous predicted outcomes and what my actual liters were, I would have been considered much sicker at a previous clinic than what I would be at my current clinic, even when taking into account age.
They've always (every clinic I've been seen at) told me percentages are very rough predictions and to get actual indication of lung health and FEV1 you MUST look at the actual liters you blow out, etc. The raw number (i.e. 1.5, 2.3, etc.), as that is something that you CAN track from center to center, while predicted FEV1 is not. Does that make sense? Its always made perfect sense to me and also makes me always keep a more open eye to the liters and NOT necessarily just on FEV1 when charting my disease progression. But, that's just what I've heard and SEEN on MY particular medical reports.
<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">