ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2009
Time for new reference values for ventilatory lung function.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference values for lung function screening in 10- to 81-year-old, healthy, never-smoking residents of Southeast China.Medicine · 2018Article
- Lung function in our aging population.European journal of medical research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe anthropometrical data of our aging population has significantly changed within the last five decades. Therefore the question arises whether or not the commonly used reference values of the European Community (ECCS) for lung function, may still be accepted today. Measured values for elderly are classified by extrapolation beyond the range of reference equations. MATERIAL AND
methodsLung function was examined by pneumotachography for recording static lung volumes and flow-volume-curves in 257 asymptomatic non smoking males, aged 20-90 years. Results were compared to the reference values of ECCS, SAPALDIA, LuftiBus, and NHANES.
resultsFor analysis age and height dependence of investigated respiratory parameters (VC, FVC, FEV(1), FEV(1) %FVC, PEF, MEF(75,50,25)) can for simplicity be described by linear functions (y = a . height(H)-b . age (A)+c). The forced expiratory volume in one second, FEV(1), was calculated by FEV(1) = 0.0432 . H-0.0347 . A -2.114; where H - height, A - age; r = 0.78. Mean FEV(1) for younger subjects was found to be 106.1 +/- 11.2% of the ECCS reference values and 97.8 +/- 11.7% in older subjects. For all parameters investigated linear regressions on age were steeper than described by the ECCS reference values. The regression of lung function to height largely follows the ECCS prescriptions. SUMMARY: Bochum lung function values of healthy subjects showed a steeper age descent compared to the reference values of the ECCS. The alternatively discussed reference values of the SAPALDIA-, NHANES- or LuftiBus-Study are higher, but do not cover all necessary parameters and/or the age range. A multi centre study for contemporary reference values is recommended.
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.