Home
About the PCRJ
Aims, Scope and History
Editorial Board
Online first
Current Issue
education@pcrj
Past Issues
Supplements
Translations
Most popular articles
Alerts
Subscribe
Instructions for Authors
Advertising
Disclaimer and Legal Notices
Contact Us
PDF View full text as PDF document

CrossRef Right click on this DOI link and copy link/shortcut to cite this article (What is a DOI link?)

Export Export to bibliographic software or plain text

CiteULike Post to CiteULike

Email this article Email this article to friend/s or colleague/s

Cited by Cited by
•   Back to table of contents

Volume 19 Issue 3 September 2010

Original Research

Exploring the need to update lung age equations

Pages 242-247
*Wendy Newburya, Jonathan Newburyb, Nancy Briggsc, Alan Crockettd

a Discipline of General Practice, School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, University of Adelaide; Spencer Gulf Rural Health School, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia

b Professor, Spencer Gulf Rural Health School, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia

c Data Management & Analysis Centre, Discipline of Public Health, University of Adelaide

d Associate Professor, Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit, Discipline of General Practice, School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, University of Adelaide

Received 22 November 2009 • Accepted 23 March 2010 • Online 12 May 2010


Abstract
AIMS: A renewed interest in lung age is evidenced by recent smoking cessation publications. This research compares the original Morris lung age equations (1985) with contemporary Australian lung age equations. METHODS: Both lung age equations were applied to the spirometry results of two sub-groups (never-smokers n=340, and current smokers n=50) from an independent dataset. Means of both lung age estimates were compared to the mean of the chronological age of each group by paired Student’s t-test. RESULTS: The Morris lung age estimates were paradoxically lower (younger) than chronological age in both groups. The new Australian equation produced lung age estimates that were equivalent to chronological age in the never-smoker group and significantly higher (older) than chronological age in the current smoker group. CONCLUSIONS: These results strongly suggest that the Morris lung age equations are in need of review. The use of contemporary lung age equations may translate into greater success for smoking cessation programs. The new Australian equations seem to possess internal validity.

Cite as: Newbury W, Newbury J, Briggs N, Crockett A. Exploring the need to update lung age equations. Prim Care Respir J 2010;19(3):242-247. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2010.00029

Keywords
Lung age, smoking cessation, spirometry

* Corresponding author. Wendy Newbury Tel: +61 8 8302 2525 Fax: +61 8 8683 2095 Email: wendy.newbury@adelaide.edu.au