ArticleTanaffos2012
Logistic regression model for prediction of airway reversibility using peak expiratory flow.
Article in Tanaffos, 2012. 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.
- Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function impairment among textile industry workers in Alexandria, Egypt.Journal of public health in Africa · 2023Article
- Impact of Personal, Subhourly Exposure to Ultrafine Particles on Respiratory Health in Adolescents with Asthma.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing peak expiratory flow (PEF) as an alternative to spirometry parameters (FEV1 and FVC), for detection of airway reversibility in diseases with airflow limitation is challenging. We developed logistic regression (LR) model to discriminate bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) and then compared the results of models with a performance of >18%, >20%, and >22% increase in ΔPEF% (PEF change relative to baseline), as a predictor for bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR). MATERIALS AND
methodsPEF measurements of pre-bronchodilator, post-bronchodilator and ΔPEF% of 90 patients with asthma (44) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (46) were used as inputs of model and the output was presence or absence of the BDR.
resultsAlthough ΔPEF% was a poor discriminator, LR model could improve the accuracy of BDR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of LR were 68.89%, 67.27%, 71.43%, and 78.72%, respectively.
conclusionThe LR is a reliable method that can be used clinically to predict BDR based on PEF measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25191401PMC4153189What 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.