ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2011
Bronchial provocation tests in clinical practice.
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiological and immunological aspects of asthma: the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) as a model of allergic asthma.Laboratory animal research · 2025Review
- Diagnostic value of lung function tests in long COVID: analysis of positive bronchial provocation test outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Not all that wheezes is asthma!Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e TisilogiaArticle
- Accuracy of spirometry for detection of asthma: a cross-sectional study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
- Pulmonology approach in the investigation of chronic unexplained dyspnea.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e TisilogiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bronchial hyperresponsiveness, which consists of an exaggerated response of the airways to bronchoconstrictor stimuli, is one of the main characteristics of asthma, presented in nearly all asthmatic patients. Bronchial hyperresponsiveness may also be present in other diseases, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, heart failure and respiratory infection, and with some medications, such as β-blockers. Bronchial provocation tests (also known as bronchial challenges) are used to evaluate bronchial responsiveness. These tests have become increasingly used over the last 20 years, with the development and validation of accurate, safe and reproducible tests, and with the publication of well-detailed protocols. Several stimuli can be used in a bronchial challenge, and they are classified as direct and indirect stimuli. There are many indications for a bronchial challenge. In this review, we discuss the main differences between direct and indirect stimuli, and the use of bronchial challenges in clinical practice, especially for confirming diagnoses of asthma, exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and cough-variant asthma, and for use among elite-level athletes.
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.