ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2022
Restrictive spirometry versus restrictive lung function using the GLI reference values.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac troponin and increased mortality risk among individuals with restrictive spirometric pattern on lung function testing.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Restrictive Spirometric Pattern and Preserved Ratio Impaired Spirometry in a Population Aged 50-64 Years.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Lung function and health-related quality of life among adult patients following pulmonary TB treatment.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2024Article
- Measuring Restrictive Lung Disease Severity Using FEVFederal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024Article
- Obstructive and restrictive spirometry from school age to adulthood: three birth cohort studies.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Restrictive spirometry versus restrictive lung function using the GLI reference values.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestrictive lung function may indicate various underlying diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different restrictive spirometry patterns (RSPs) to identify restrictive lung function (total lung capacity [TLC] < lower limit of normal [LLN]) according to reference values by the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) in a wide age-ranged, general population sample.
methodsA general population sample (n = 607, age 23-72 years, smokers 18.8%) with proper dynamic spirometry and TLC measurements, was included. Accuracy of two main categories of RSP to identify TLC < LLN were evaluated: traditional RSPs (definition 1: FVC < 80% of predicted and FEV
resultsThe prevalence of restrictive lung function (TLC < LLN) was 5.3%. The most accurate cut-offs for FVC to identify TLC < LLN were 85.5% for FVC% of predicted, and -1.0 for FVC Z-score. The traditional RSP definitions 1 and 2 had higher specificity (95.0% and 96.9%) but substantially lower sensitivity compared to RSP definitions 3 and 4.
conclusionBased on the GLI reference values, the RSP definition FVC < LLN and FEV
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.