Observational studyPloS one2015
Prognostic Value of the Six-Second Spirometry in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Cohort Study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship between urinary tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and lung function: Evidence from NHANES 2007-2012.Tobacco induced diseases · 2023Article
- Journal Club-Respiratory Impairment With A Preserved Spirometric Ratio.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2022Article
- Validity of the Handheld Expiratory Flowmeter for COPD Screening in the Primary Care Setting of China.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- Early diagnosis of COPD: myth or a true perspective.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Review
- Spirometric indices of early airflow impairment in individuals at risk of developing COPD: Spirometry beyond FEVRespiratory medicine · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe six-second spirometry has been proposed as an alternative to diagnose airflow limitation, although its prognostic value in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic value of the postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds (FEV6) ratio and FEV6 in COPD patients. METHODS AND
findingsThe study population consisted of 2,614 consecutive stable patients with COPD. The patients were monitored for an average period of 4.3 years regarding mortality, hospitalizations by COPD exacerbations, diagnosis of lung cancer, and annual lung function decline. The overall rate of death was 10.7 (95%CI: 8.7-12.7) per 1000 person-years. In addition to male gender, age and comorbidity, FEV6 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.981, 95%CI: 0.968-0.003) and FEV1/FEV6 quartiles (lowest quartile (<74% pred.): HR 3.558, 95%CI: 1.752-7.224; and second quartile (74-84% pred.): HR 2.599, 95%CI: 1.215-5.561; versus best quartile (>0.89% pred.)) were independently associated with mortality, whereas FEV1 was not retained in the model. 809 patients (30.9%) had at least one hospital admission due to COPD exacerbation. In addition to sex, age, smoking and comorbidity, FEV1 and FEV1/FEV6 quartiles were independent risk factors of hospitalization. FEV6 was the only spirometric parameter independently related with lung function annual decline, while the FEV6 and FEV1/FEV6 quartiles were independent risk factors for lung cancer.
conclusionsIn a general COPD outpatient population, airflow obstruction assessed by the FEV1/FEV6 is an independent risk factor for both death and hospitalization.
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.