ArticleLung2018
The Differences in Spirometry Predictive Equations in Classifying Presence and Degree of Lung Function Impairment: Which Suit Fits the Best?
Article in Lung, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Fatty Liver Disease is Associated with Greater Impairment of Lung Function than Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2022Article
- Effect of the Application of the Global Lung Initiative 2012 Spirometry Reference Equation on the Diagnosing and Classifying Degree of Airway Obstruction in Thai Adults Aged 40 to 80 Years Old.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Article
- Diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Serbia: an expert group position statement.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the differences between three most commonly used predictive equations (PE): ECCS (European Community of Coal and Steel), the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), and GLI (Global Lung Initiative) in healthy individuals and when grading severity of lung function impairment in patients with obstructive lung diseases.
methodsThe study included 200 healthy volunteers and 200 patients with obstructive lung diseases at the Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina. In all subjects, we calculated the absolute and relative (percent) predicted values using ECCS, NHANES III, and GLI reference equations.
resultsThe mean differences between ECCS and NHANES III predicted values were 5.63% (95% CI 5.29-5.98%, p < 0.001) for FEV1 and 10% (95% CI 9.52-10.79%, p < 0.001) for FVC. Similar differences were observed between ECCS and GLI predicted values. There were minimal differences between NHANES III and GLI predictive values. In healthy subjects, the mean absolute difference between measured FEV1 and FEV1 ECCS predicted was 0.36l (95% CI 0.32l, 0.40l, p < 0.001), FEV1 NHANES predicted was 0.30 l (95% CI 0.27-0.35l, p < 0.001), and FEV1 GLI predicted was 0.31l (95% CI 0.27- 0.35l, p < 0.001). The use of three different PE leads to significant differences in classification of obstruction severity in both asthma and COPD patients.
conclusionsThere were significant differences between FEV1 and FVC predicted when using different PE. The absolute difference between actual and predicted FEV1 in healthy individuals was highest when using ECCS. The use of different PE may change the interpretation of severity of airway obstruction.
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.