ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2018
Quality and learning aspects of the first 9000 spirometries of the LifeGene study.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 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.
- Effects of repetition as training and incentives on the performance in pulmonary function tests in healthy volunteers.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Predictors for detecting chronic respiratory diseases in community surveys: A pilot cross-sectional survey in four South and South East Asian low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2021Review
- Precision Psychiatry Applications with Pharmacogenomics: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Safety and use of pulmonary function tests: a retrospective study from a single center over seven years' clinical practice.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spirometry requires the patient to cooperate and do the manoeuvre 'right' for reliable results. Algorithms to assess test quality as well as educational recommendations for personnel are defined in guidelines. We compared the quality of forced spirometry tests performed by spirometry technicians with little or no previous experience of spirometry using spirometry systems with different modes of feedback. In both cases, the spirometry technician received general feedback on the screen based on ATS/ERS guidelines, such as 'exhale faster' and 'exhale longer'. The major difference was whether quality grading system of the complete session was available simultaneously on screen, or in the printed report afterwards. Two parts of the same population-based study (LifeGene), the pilot (LG1) and the first part (LG2) of the subsequent study, were compared retrospectively. In LG1 (on-screen grading) approved examination quality was achieved for 88% of the 10 first subjects for each spirometry technician compared to 70% in LG2 (printed grading afterwards). The corresponding values after 40 subjects was 94 % in LG1, compared to 73% in LG2, and after the first ten subjects there was no apparent quality improvement in either LG1 or LG2. The quality for LG1 is among the highest reported in the literature even though the spirometry technician were relatively inexperienced. We conclude that on-screen grading in addition to general technical quality feedback is powerful in enhancing the spirometry test session quality.
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.