ArticleBMC family practice2016
A retrospective study of two populations to test a simple rule for spirometry.
Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic lung disease is common and often under-diagnosed.
methodsTo test a simple rule for conducting spirometry we reviewed spirograms from two populations, occupational medicine evaluations (OME) conducted by Saint Louis and Wake Forest Universities at 3 sites (n = 3260, mean age 64.14 years, 95 % CI 58.94-69.34, 97 % men) and conducted by Wake Forest University preop clinic (POC) at one site (n = 845, mean age 62.10 years, 95 % CI 50.46-73.74, 57 % men). This retrospective review of database information that the first author collected prospectively identified rates, types, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value for lung function abnormalities and associated mortality rate found when conducting spirometry based on the 20/40 rule (≥20 years of smoking in those aged ≥ 40 years) in the OME population. To determine the reproducibility of the 20/40 rule for conducting spirometry, the rule was applied to the POC population.
resultsA lung function abnormality was found in 74 % of the OME population and 67 % of the POC population. Sensitivity of the rule was 85 % for an obstructive pattern and 77 % for any abnormality on spirometry. Positive and negative predictive values of the rule for a spirometric abnormality were 74 and 55 %, respectively. Patients with an obstructive pattern were at greater risk of coronary heart disease (odds ratio (OR) 1.39 [confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.93] vs. normal) and death (hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95 % CI 1.20-1.84) than subjects with normal spirometry. Restricted spirometry patterns were also associated with greater risk of coronary disease (odds ratio (OR) 1.7 [CI 1.23-2.35]) and death (Hazard ratio 1.40, 95 % CI 1.08-1.72).
conclusionsSmokers (≥ 20 pack years) age ≥ 40 years are at an increased risk for lung function abnormalities and those abnormalities are associated with greater presence of coronary heart disease and increased all-cause mortality. Use of the 20/40 rule could provide a simple method to enhance selection of candidates for spirometry evaluation in the primary care setting.
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.