Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34331574›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2021

Evaluation of sex-based differences in airway size and the physiological implications.

Leah M Mann, Sarah A Angus, Connor J Doherty, Paolo B Dominelli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Leah M MannDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Sarah A AngusDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Connor J DohertyDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Paolo B DominelliDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, Canada. paolo.dominelli@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5575-4043

Funding

natural sciences and engineering research council of canada RGPIN-2019-04615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests healthy females have significantly smaller central conducting airways than males when matched for either height or lung volume during analysis. This anatomical sex-based difference could impact the integrative response to exercise. Our review critically evaluates the literature on direct and indirect techniques to measure central conducting airway size and their limitations. We present multiple sources highlighting the difference between male and female central conducting airway size in both pediatric and adult populations. Following the discussion of measurement techniques and results, we discuss the functional implications of these differences in central conducting airway size, including work of breathing, oxygen cost of breathing, and how these impacts will continue into elderly populations. We then discuss a range of topics for the future direction of airway differences and the benefits they could provide to both healthy and diseased populations. Specially, these sex-differences in central conducting airway size could result in different aerosol deposition or how lung disease manifests. Finally, we detail emerging techniques that uniquely allow for high-resolution imaging to be paired with detailed physiological measures.

Indexed as

Respiratory Physiological PhenomenaSex CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleRespiratory SystemExerciseRespiratory mechanicsTurbulence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.