SynthesisPediatric pulmonology2022
Does the routine use of spirometry improve clinical outcomes in children?-A systematic review.
Synthesis in Pediatric pulmonology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spirometry provides a quantitative measure of lung function and its use is recommended as an adjunct to enhance pediatric respiratory healthcare in many clinical practice guidelines. However, there is limited evidence confirming the benefits (or otherwise) of using spirometry from either clinician or patient perspectives. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of spirometry on change in clinical decision making and patient-reported outcome measures. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from inception to July 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use versus non-use of spirometry during standard clinical review in children aged <18 years with respiratory problems in clinics. We used Cochrane methodology. The search identified 3475 articles; 8 full-text articles were reviewed but only 1 study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The single study involved two cluster RCTs of spirometry for children with asthma in general practice. The included study did not find any significant intergroup difference at the 12-month follow-up for asthma-related quality-of-life and clinical endpoints. However, the findings were limited by methodological weaknesses and high risks of bias. With a paucity of data, the clinical benefits of spirometry remain unclear. Thus, there is a clear need for RCTs that provide high-quality evidence to support the routine use of spirometry in children with suspected or known lung disease. Pending the availability of better evidence, we recommend that clinicians adhere to the current clinical practice recommendations.
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.