Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30023402›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2018

Comparison of different analysis algorithms to calculate multiple-breath washout outcomes.

Pinelopi Anagnostopoulou, Nadja Kranz, Jeremias Wolfensberger, Marisa Guidi, Sylvia Nyilas, Cordula Koerner-Rettberg, Sophie Yammine, Florian Singer, Philipp Latzin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Multiple breath washout in primary ciliary dyskinesia: a systematic review of the literature.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Pinelopi AnagnostopoulouPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nadja KranzPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jeremias WolfensbergerPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marisa GuidiPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sylvia NyilasPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Cordula Koerner-RettbergDept of Pediatric Pulmonology, University Children's Hospital of Ruhr University Bochum at St Josef-Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
Sophie YamminePediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Florian SingerPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3471-5664
Philipp LatzinPediatric Respiratory Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung clearance index (LCI) is the main outcome of the multiple-breath washout (MBW) test. Current recommendations for LCI acquisition are based on low-grade evidence. The aim of this study was to challenge those recommendations using alternative methods for LCI analysis. Nitrogen MBW measurements from school-aged children, 20 healthy controls, 20 with cystic fibrosis (CF) and 17 with primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), were analysed using 1) current algorithms (standard), 2) three alternative algorithms to detect with higher precision the end of MBW testing and 3) two alternative algorithms to determine exhaled tracer gas concentrations. LCI values, intra-test repeatability, and ability to discriminate between health and lung disease were compared between these methods. The analysis methods strongly influenced LCI (mean±sd overall differences (%) between standard and alternative analysis methods: -4.9±5.7%; range: -66-19%), but did not improve intra-test variability. Discrimination between health and disease was comparable as areas under the receiver operator curves were not greater than that from standard analysis. This study supports current recommendations for LCI calculation in children. Alternative methods influence LCI estimates and hamper comparability between MBW setups. Alternative algorithms, whenever used, should be carefully reported.

Identifiers

PMID30023402
PMCPMC6043724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.