SynthesisLung2019
A Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Agreement Between Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperventilation and Cardiopulmonary Exercise Tests for Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction.
Synthesis in Lung, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of climate variability on exercise-induced bronchospasm in adolescents living in a semi-arid region.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is very common in athletes. Cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) have traditionally been used for the diagnosis of EIB. However, alternative indirect bronchoprovocation tests have recently been used as surrogate tests. One of these is the eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH). This meta-analysis studied the agreement between the two tests.
methodsAn extensive search in PubMed and Medline was conducted for studies where participants underwent both CPET and EVH with measurement of forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV
resultsThe pooled positive and negative agreements between EVH and CPET (with CPET as the reference) were 0.62 [(95% confidence interval 0.54-0.70), I
conclusionsResults of this meta-analysis show poor positive agreement between the two tests but high negative agreement (specifically using EVH as reference), suggesting that either test can be used for correctly identifying those without EIB. Results also suggest that the chances of a test resulting positive are higher with EVH than with CPET.
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.