ReviewJournal of occupational and environmental medicine2014
Performing a lung disability evaluation: how, when, and why?
Review in Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Comparison of different reference values for lung function: implications of inconsistent use among centers.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Race and Ethnicity in Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation: An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Prognostic implications of differences in forced vital capacity in black and white US adults: Findings from NHANES III with long-term mortality follow-up.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Exercise-induced airflow changes in horses with asthma measured by electrical impedance tomography.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- A 2019 Update on Occupational Lung Diseases: A Narrative Review.Pulmonary therapy · 2021Review
- Potential Protective Effects of Naringin on Oculo-Pulmonary Injury Induced by PMCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this review is to present a case-based clinical discussion on this topic.
methodsThe article represents part of the proceedings of the Occupational and Environmental Lung Disease conference held by the American College of Chest Physicians at Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in 2013, and is based upon a nonsystematic review of the current literature by the author.
resultsAlthough the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is the mainstay for evaluating respiratory impairment, many other impairment schemata are currently available in the United States. Impairment evaluation for a case with chronic respiratory disease and a separate case with asthma is discussed.
conclusionsPulmonary function tests are the cornerstone for evaluating respiratory impairment. Impairment values differ between various impairment schemata. Impairment evaluation for asthma may be particularly difficult.
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.