ArticlePrimary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group2012
Newer equations better predict lung age in smokers: a retrospective analysis using a cohort of randomly selected participants.
Article in Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Self-Reported Smoking Status 10-Months After a Single Session Intervention Including an Education Conference About Smoking Harms and Announcement of Spirometric Lung-Age.Clinical medicine insights. Circulatory, respiratory and pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Dawning of a new lung age?Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo produce new lung age equations using four previously published predictive equations for forced expiratory volume in 1 second and to compare them with lung age equations published in 1985 and 2010.
methodsInitial comparisons used phantom subjects of different ages and levels of lung function. Comparison of lung age equations by regression analysis used an independent dataset of 3,206 randomly selected community-dwelling adults aged >18 years in the North West Adelaide Health Study.
resultsThe more recent equations estimated lung age as greater than chronological age as lung function decreased, whereas the oldest equations estimated lung age as less than chronological age until lung function was severely limited. Significant differences (p<0.001) were detected by regression analysis, with four newer lung age equations being significantly different from the 1985 equation and one being no different.
conclusionsLung age estimates using six predictive equations spanning 50 years show differences attributable to cohort and period effects. This reinforces the need for regular updating of predictive equations for lung function. These results further confirm the need to use modern lung age equations which will provide a stronger message in smoking cessation counselling.
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.