ArticlePloS one2014
What makes a difference in exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: an 8 year retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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.
- Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, allergy and sports in children.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024Review
- Impact of climate variability on exercise-induced bronchospasm in adolescents living in a semi-arid region.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2021Article
- Exercise-Induced Bronchospasm and Allergy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was recently classified into EIB alone and EIB with asthma, based on the presence of concurrent asthma.
objectiveDifferences between EIB alone and EIB with asthma have not been fully described.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed who visited an allergy clinic for respiratory symptoms after exercise and underwent exercise bronchial provocation testing. More than a 15% decrease of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to the end of a 6 min free-running challenge test was interpreted as positive EIB.
resultsEIB was observed in 66.9% of the study subjects (89/133). EIB-positive subjects showed higher positivity to methacholine provocation testing (61.4% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001) compared with EIB-negative subjects. In addition, sputum eosinophilia was more frequently observed in EIB-positive subjects than in EIB-negative subjects (56% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.037). The temperature and relative humidity on exercise test day were significantly related with the EIB-positive rate. Positive EIB status was correlated with both temperature (p = 0.001) and relative humidity (p = 0.038) in the methacholine-negative EIB group while such a correlation was not observed in the methacholine-positive EIB group. In the methacholine-positive EIB group the time to reach a 15% decrease in FEV1 during exercise was significantly shorter than that in the methacholine-negative EIB group (3.2±0.7 min vs. 8.6±1.6 min, p = 0.004).
conclusionsEIB alone may be a distinct clinical entity from EIB with asthma. Conditions such as temperature and humidity should be considered when performing exercise tests, especially in subjects with EIB alone.
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.