ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021
The role of clinical signs and spirometry in the diagnosis of obstructive airway diseases: a systematic analysis adapted to general practice settings.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-Effort Respiratory Function Estimation with a Soft Wearable Digital Spirometry Patch.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Clinical implications of wheezing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn general practice (GP), the diagnosis of obstructive airway diseases much relies on diagnostic questions, in view of the limited availability of lung function. We systematically assessed the relative importance of such questions for diagnosing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), either without or with information from spirometry.
methodsWe used data obtained in a pulmonary practice to ensure the validity of diagnoses and assessments. Subjects with a diagnosis of COPD (n=260), or asthma (n=433), or other respiratory diseases (n=230), and subjects without respiratory diseases (n=364, controls) were included. The diagnostic questions comprised eight items, covering smoking history, self-attributed allergic rhinitis, dyspnea, cough, phlegm and wheeze. Optionally standard parameters of the flow-volume-curve were included. Decision trees for the diagnosis of COPD and asthma were constructed, moreover a probabilistic diagnostic network based on the results of path analyses describing the relationship between variables.
resultsIn the decision trees, age, sex, current smoking, wheezing, dyspnea upon mild exertion, self-attributed allergic rhinitis, phlegm, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV
conclusionsThe study developed simple diagnostic algorithms for asthma and COPD that take into account the relative importance of clinical signs and history, as well as spirometric data if available. The diagnostic accuracy was especially high for COPD. These algorithms may be helpful as a starting point in the standardisation of diagnostic strategies in GP practices.
trial registrationThe study is registered under DRKS00013935 at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, Date of registration 01/03/2018).
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.