Abstract

Is there a discrepancy between a physical law and the spirometric definition of airflow obstruction?

Background: It has long been emphasized that if physicians rely on clinical signs and symptoms only, they may under-diagnose many of the airflow-limited patients. But what if they rely on spirometry alone and overlook physical examinations as the case is now? Interesting studies on physics of sounds show that wheezing is definitely indicative of an airflow limitation, but, according to current guidelines, presence or absence of wheezes has not been taken into consideration for diagnosis. The purpose of present study was to detect the degree of spirometric deterioration in patients who were physically presumed to have definite airflow obstruction, namely diffuse bilateral wheezes


Author(s):

Masoud R and Hosseini B Mahdi



Abstract | PDF

Share this  Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  Google+

Recommended Conferences

  • 5th  International Conference and Exhibition on Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
    September 11-12, 2017 San Antonio, Texas, USA
  • 5th International Conference on Current Trends in Mass Spectrometry
    September 25-27, 2017 Atlanta, USA
  • 15th World Medical Nanotechnology Congress & Expo
    October 18-19, 2017 Osaka, Japan
Flyer image

Abstracted/Indexed in

  • Google Scholar