ArticlePloS one2020
Lung clearance index in healthy volunteers, measured using a novel portable system with a closed circuit wash-in.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary exacerbations in primary ciliary dyskinesia.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- A Pilot Study of Lung Clearance Index as a Useful Outcome Marker in the Follow-Up of Pediatric Patients with Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLung clearance index (LCI) is a sensitive measure of early lung disease, but adoption into clinical practice has been slow. Challenges include the time taken to perform each test. We recently described a closed-circuit inert gas wash-in method that reduces overall testing time by decreasing the time to equilibration. The aim of this study was to define a normative range of LCI in healthy adults and children derived using this method. We were also interested in the feasibility of using this system to measure LCI in a community setting.
methodsLCI was assessed in healthy volunteers at three hospital sites and in two local primary schools. Volunteers completed three washout repeats at a single visit using the closed circuit wash-in method (0.2% SF6 wash-in tracer gas to equilibrium, room air washout).
results160 adult and paediatric subjects successfully completed LCI assessment (95%) (100 in hospital, 60 in primary schools). Median coefficient of variation was 3.4% for LCI repeats and 4.3% for FRC. Mean (SD) LCI for the analysis cohort (n = 53, age 5-39 years) was 6.10 (0.42), making the upper limit of normal LCI 6.8. There was no relationship between LCI and multiple demographic variables. Median (interquartile range) total test time was 18.7 (16.0-22.5) minutes.
conclusionThe closed circuit method of LCI measurement can be successfully and reproducibly measured in healthy volunteers, including in out-of-hospital settings. Normal range appears stable up to 39 years. With few subjects older than 40 years, further work is required to define the normal limits above this age.
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.