Extract
We read with great interest the recent paper of de Jong et al. [1] evaluating the contribution of a detailed history and a variety of diagnostic tests, including spirometry and bronchodilator tests, to diagnosing asthma in 111 children. In the methodology section, with regard to their definition of a “clinically significant” bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR), the authors only considered the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and applied the following two thresholds: ≥10% increase (no reference was cited) and ≥12% increase (according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [2]). Their approach could be a source of confusion for at least three reasons.
Abstract
The worldwide disagreement with regard to what constitutes a “clinically significant” BDR has long been a source of confusion for clinicians and can hinder an appropriate asthma diagnosis and therefore “disturb” its management http://bit.ly/2VONQhR
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Samir Boukattay for his invaluable contribution in the improvement of the quality of the writing in the present article.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: F. Guezguez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: H. Ben Saad has nothing to disclose.
- Received January 30, 2020.
- Accepted February 27, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020