ArticleFrontiers in physiology2020
Maximal Voluntary Ventilation Should Not Be Estimated From the Forced Expiratory Volume in the First Second in Healthy People and COPD Patients.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inspiratory muscle training in patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Cardiorespiratory impact of COVID-19 in young adults: A propensity score-weighted cohort study.New microbes and new infections · 2025Article
- Therapeutic effects of single-port thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy on early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Dynamic hyperinflation occurs in healthy subjects during maximal voluntary ventilation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Calculated Maximal Volume Ventilation (cMVV) as a Marker of Early Respiratory Failure in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the concordance between the value of the actual maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and the estimated value by multiplying the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV
methodsA retrospective study was conducted with healthy subjects and patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Five prediction formulas MVV were used for the comparison with the MVV values. Agreement between MVV measured and MVV obtained from five prediction equations were studied. FEV
resultsWe recruited 207 healthy subjects (105 women, age 47 ± 17 years) and 83 COPD patients (age 66 ± 6 years; 29 GOLD II, 30 GOLD III, and 24 GOLD IV) for the study. All prediction equations presented a significant correlation with the MVV value (from 0.38 to 0.86,
conclusionThe equations to estimate the value of MVV present a good degree of correlation with the real value of MVV, but they also show a poor concordance. For this reason, we should not use the estimated results as a replacement for the real value of MVV.
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.