ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018
Discrepancy between in vivo and in vitro comparisons of forced oscillation devices.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tracking respiratory mechanics around natural breathing rates via variable ventilation.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Respiratory mechanics: modelling, measurement and clinical applications-a review.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- Pseudorandom Noise Forced Oscillation Technique to Assess Lung Function in Prematurely Born Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Normal limits for oscillometric bronchodilator responses and relationships with clinical factors.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Respiratory impedance measured using impulse oscillometry in a healthy urban population.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Clinical Application of Forced Oscillation Technique (FOT) in Early Detection of Airway Changes in Smokers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2018-2019 end of year summary: respiration.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Review
- Lung Function Assessment by Impulse Oscillometry in Adults.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2020Review
- Comparison of oscillometry devices using active mechanical test loads.ERJ open research · 2019Article
- Oscillometry in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the impulse oscillometry and tremoflo devices.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Dismantling airway disease with the use of new pulmonary function indices.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019Review
- Comparison of Forced and Impulse Oscillometry Measurements: A Clinical Population and Printed Airway Model Study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Interdevice agreement in respiratory resistance values by oscillometry in asthmatic children.ERJ open research · 2019Article
- Regression equations of respiratory impedance of Indian adults measured by forced oscillation technique.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The forced oscillation technique (FOT) is an emerging clinical lung function test, with commercial devices becoming increasingly available. However comparability across existing devices has not been established. We evaluated in vivo and in vitro measurements made using three commercial devices against a custom-built device (WIMR): Resmon Pro Diary (Restech srl, Italy), tremoFlo C-100 (Thorasys Medical Systems, Canada), Jaeger Masterscope CT IOS (CareFusion, Hoechberg, Germany). Respiratory system resistance Rrs and reactance Xrs at 5 Hz were examined in twelve healthy subjects (mean age 33 ± 11 years, 7 males), and in two test standards of known resistance and reactance. Subjects performed three measurements during tidal breathing on the four devices in random order. Total, inspiratory and expiratory Rrs and Xrs were calculated and compared using one-way repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Rrs did not differ between devices, with <10% deviation from predicted, except for the IOS device. With Xrs, similar values were seen between the WIMR and Resmon devices and between the tremoFlo and IOS devices. No differences were observed using test standards; deviation from theoretical value was <2% for resistance and <5% for reactance. The WIMR, tremoFlo and Resmon Pro but not IOS devices measure similar Rrs, whereas there was more disparity across devices in the estimation of Xrs parameters. The discrepancy between in vivo and in vitro measurements suggest that FOT validation procedures need to take into account the breathing pattern, either using biological controls or a breathing model.
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.