THE RESPIRATORY ORGANS IN HEALTH AND IN DISEASE: XVI. A COMPARISON OF VITAL CAPACITY STANDARDS IN THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR MALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

In spite of the large amount of recent work done on the many aspects of the subject of the vital lung capacity, disagreement still exists as to the best choice of standards for predicting the normal capacity of a given individual. The recent interest of thoracic surgeons in the use of vital capacity measurements as an aid to determine surgical risk adds another group to the large number of clinicians already seeking suitable normal standards for use in this work. Hutchinson's¹ pioneer work led to the belief that the standing height was the best measurement on which to base calculations of lung capacity. Peabody and Wentworth² preferred height measurements in their estimations. Lundsgaard and Van Slyke³ advocated the use of certain chest dimensions. West⁴ found surface area most reliable. Dreyer⁵ prepared formulas for estimating vital capacity from height, weight, stem height and chest circumference, and these have been widely used.