ArticleBMJ open2021
Impact of using spirometry on clinical decision making and quality of life in children: protocol for a single centre randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the routine use of spirometry improve clinical outcomes in children?-A systematic review.Pediatric pulmonology · 2022Pooled it
- Does routine spirometry impact on clinical decisions and patient-related outcome measures of children seen in respiratory clinics: an open-label randomised controlled trial.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Trial
- Clinical determinants for State-Trait Anxiety Inventory of the parents of children with respiratory problems.Pediatric pulmonology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough spirometry has been available for decades, it is underused in paediatric practice, other than in specialist clinics. This is unsurprising as there is limited evidence on the benefit of routine spirometry in improving clinical decision making and/or outcomes for children. We hypothesised that using spirometry for children being evaluated for respiratory diseases impacts on clinical decision making and/or improves patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and/or quality of life (QoL), compared with not using spirometry. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are undertaking a randomised controlled trial (commenced in March 2020) that will include 106 children (aged 4-18 years) recruited from respiratory clinics at Queensland Children's Hospital, Australia. Inclusion criteria are able to perform reliable spirometry and a parent/guardian who can complete questionnaire(s). Children (1:1 allocation) are randomised to clinical medical review with spirometry (intervention group) or without spirometry (control group) within strata of consultation status (new/review), and cough condition (present/absent). The primary outcome is change in clinical decision making. The secondary outcomes are change in PROM scores, opinions regarding spirometry and degree of diagnosis certainty. Intergroup differences of these outcomes will be determined by χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Queensland Children's Hospital approved the study. The trial results will be disseminated through conference presentations, teaching avenues and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001686190; Pre-results.
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.