ArticlePloS one2022
Cut-off value for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction based on the features of the airway obstruction.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Artificial Intelligence-Based Technology to Diagnose Asthma Using Methacholine Challenge Tests.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current cut-off value for diagnosing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in adults-percent fall in FEV1 (ΔFEV1) ≥ 10% after exercise challenge test (ECT)-has low specificity and weak evidences. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the cut-off value for EIB that provides the highest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Participants who underwent the ECT between 2007 and 2018 were categorized according to ΔFEV1: definite EIB (ΔFEV1 ≥ 15%), borderline (10% ≤ ΔFEV1 < 15%), and normal (ΔFEV1 < 10%). Distinct characteristics of the definite EIB group were identified and explored in the borderline EIB group. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to determine the optimal cut-off value. Of 128 patients, 60 were grouped as the definite EIB group, 23 as the borderline group, and 45 as the normal group. All participants were men, with a median age of 20 years (interquartile range [IQR:] 19-23 years). The definite EIB group exhibited wheezing on auscultation (P < 0.001), ΔFEV1/FVC ≥ 10% (P < 0.001), and ΔFEF25-75% ≥ 25% (P < 0.001) compared to other groups. Eight (8/23, 34.8%) patients in the borderline group had at least one of these features, but the trend was more similar to that of the normal group than the definite EIB group. A cut-off value of ΔFEV1 ≥ 13.5% had a sensitivity of 98.5% and specificity of 93.5% for EIB. Wheezing on auscultation, ΔFEV1/FVC ≥ 10%, and ΔFEF25-75% ≥ 25% after ECT may be useful for the diagnosis of EIB, particularly in individuals with a ΔFEV1 of 10-15%. For EIB, a higher cut-off value, possibly ΔFEV1 ≥ 13.5%, should be considered as the diagnostic criterion.
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.