Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33072774›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2020

Evaluation of Dynamic Respiratory Mechanical Abnormalities During Conventional CPET.

Kathryn M Milne, Nicolle J Domnik, Devin B Phillips, Matthew D James, Sandra G Vincent, J Alberto Neder, Denis E O'Donnell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Identifying limitations to exercise with incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing: a scoping review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors.

Kathryn M MilneRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Nicolle J DomnikRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Devin B PhillipsRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Matthew D JamesRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Sandra G VincentRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
J Alberto NederLaboratory of Clinical Exercise Physiology, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Denis E O'DonnellRespiratory Investigation Unit, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre & Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of the ventilatory response to exercise is important in evaluating mechanisms of dyspnea and exercise intolerance in chronic cardiopulmonary diseases. The characteristic mechanical derangements that occur during exercise in chronic respiratory conditions have previously been determined in seminal studies using esophageal catheter pressure-derived measurements. In this brief review, we examine the emerging role and clinical utility of conventional assessment of dynamic respiratory mechanics during exercise testing. Thus, we provide a physiologic rationale for measuring operating lung volumes, breathing pattern, and flow-volume loops during exercise. We consider standardization of inspiratory capacity-derived measurements and their practical implementation in clinical laboratories. We examine the evidence that this iterative approach allows greater refinement in evaluation of ventilatory limitation during exercise than traditional assessments of breathing reserve. We appraise the available data on the reproducibility and responsiveness of this methodology. In particular, we review inspiratory capacity measurement and derived operating lung volumes during exercise. We demonstrate, using recent published data, how systematic evaluation of dynamic mechanical constraints, together with breathing pattern analysis, can provide valuable insights into the nature and extent of physiological impairment contributing to exercise intolerance in individuals with common chronic obstructive and restrictive respiratory disorders.

Indexed as

cardiopulmonary exercise testdyspneainspiratory capacityrespiratory mechanicsrespiratory physiology

Identifiers

PMID33072774
PMCPMC7533639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.