ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2016
Feasibility of spirometry in primary care to screen for COPD: a pilot study.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The Role of Impulse Oscillometry in Detection of Preserved Ratio Impaired Spirometry (PRISm).Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Spirometry practice by French general practitioners between 2010 and 2018 in adults aged 40 to 75 years.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- Healthcare resource consumption prior to asthma-related death: a nationwide descriptive study.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOPD is a frequent but underdiagnosed disease whose diagnosis relies on the spirometric demonstration of bronchial obstruction. Spirometry use by general practitioners could represent the first line in COPD diagnosis.
objectiveBecause duration of spirometry is retarding its development in primary care, we decided to measure the time it requires in the primary-care context in France.
methodsTen volunteer general practitioners were trained during two 3-hour theoretical and practical continuing education sessions. Then, from October 2013 to May 2014, they included patients without any known respiratory disease but at risk of developing COPD (age: ≥40 years, smoker: ≥20 pack-years). The duration of spirometry and its quality were evaluated according to the following acceptability criteria: 1) expiration ≥6 seconds or reaching a plateau; 2) good start with an early peak flow, curve peaked on top and not flat; 3) no artifacts; and 4) reproducibility criteria, ie, forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity differences between the two best spirometry curves ≤0.15 L. Quality of the spirograms was defined as optimal when all the criteria were met and acceptable when all the criteria were satisfied except the reproducibility criterion, otherwise, it was unacceptable.
resultsFor the 152 patients included, the 142 assessable spirometries lasted for 15.2±5.9 minutes. Acceptability criteria 1-3, respectively, were satisfied for 90.1%, 89.4%, and 91.5% of patients and reproducibility criterion 4 for 56.3%. Quality was considered optimal for 58.5% of the curves and acceptable for 30.2%.
conclusionThe duration of spirometry renders it poorly compatible with the current primary-care practice in France other than for dedicated consultations. Moreover, the quality of spirometry needs to be improved.
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.