ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[Quality of spirometry tests done in primary care units in the province of Gipuzkoa].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of spirometry as a motivational tool for smoking cessation: a clinical trial, the ESPIMOAT study.BMC family practice · 2013Trial
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Spain and the different aspects of its social impact: a multidisciplinary opinion document.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2020Article
- The use of spirometry in a primary care setting.International journal of general medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the validity of Spirometry tests done in primary care in our province and to find in what parts of the test errors are committed.
designTransversal, descriptive study.
settingAll the primary care units in the province of Gipuzkoa, Spain.
participantsThirty of the 44 existing units took part, contributing the last 10 spirometry tests conducted in November, 2005. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Two primary care doctors who were skilled in spirometry analysed the acceptability, reproducibility, possible utility of invalid tests and their spirometric patterns. They also looked at aspects of the curve that were not sufficient. Tests were considered acceptable, reproducible and possibly useful when the 2 doctors coincided. Where they did not coincide, these characteristics were determined by a pneumologist. The validity criteria of the ATS were followed.
resultsOf the 44 units in our province, 30 took part. They contributed 300 spirometry tests, of which 12 were excluded as illegible. A total of 48% were considered acceptable, 78% met reproducibility criteria and 38.5% met both characteristics. The most common error was the scant length of exhalation, insufficient in 38.19% of cases. The most usual pattern found was the normal one with 58%, followed by the restrictive with 18%, the obstructive with 13%, and the mixed one, with 11%.
conclusionsQuality of spirometry tests in primary care is deficient. The most common error is that exhalation is too brief. We think this is why we find a predominance of restrictive patterns over obstructive ones. Just by prolonging the spirometry operation, we would manage to increase markedly the number of valid tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.