Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36362710›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Validation Criteria for P

Nathalie Yaël Pauwen, Vitalie Faoro, Françoise Boucharessas, Thierry Colot, Alexis Guillaume, Roger Sergysels, Vincent Ninane

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. End-tidal COFrontiers in physiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A decrease in plant gain, namely COFrontiers in physiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nathalie Yaël PauwenCardio-Pulmonary Exercise Laboratory, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9769-419X
Vitalie FaoroCardio-Pulmonary Exercise Laboratory, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium.
Françoise BoucharessasDepartment of Pneumology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire St Pierre & Brugmann, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Thierry ColotDepartment of Pneumology-Physiotherapy, Iris-Sud Hospitals, 1190 Forest, Belgium.
Alexis GuillaumeCardio-Pulmonary Exercise Laboratory, Faculty of Motor Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium.
Roger SergyselsDepartment of Pneumology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire St Pierre & Brugmann, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Vincent NinaneDepartment of Pneumology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire St Pierre & Brugmann, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Brugmann · BEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEHôpitaux Iris Sud · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The hyperventilation provocation test (HPTest) is a diagnostic tool for idiopathic hyperventilation syndrome (HVS), encountered in some long-COVID patients. However, interpretation of the HPTest remains unclear regarding the relevant PETCO2 values to focus on and whether subjective symptoms should be considered. This study aimed to re-evaluate objective HPTest results for diagnosing HVS by determining accurate PETCO2 kinetics in two groups of patients previously screened via the Nijmegen questionnaire (NQ). Methods: The kinetics of PETCO2 during the HPTest were mathematically modeled and compared between 37 HVS patients (NQ ≥23/64) and 37 healthy controls (NQ <23/64) matched for gender, age, and body dimensions. AUC values with sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and analysis was monitored in a validation cohort of 152 routine HPTests. Results: A threshold value of a less than 12.8 mmHg increment of PETCO2 at the 5th minute of the recovery phase of the HPTest diagnosed HVS patients with excellent sensitivity (0.92) and specificity (0.84). These results were confirmed in the validation cohort, highlighting the presence of 24% false positives/negatives when diagnosing on the basis of complaints in the NQ. Conclusions: For HVS diagnosis, we suggest considering the HPTest, which can more reliably reflect the mechanisms of CO2 homeostasis and the response of the respiratory center to a stimulus, regardless of the subjective onset of symptoms.

Indexed as

diagnosisdysfunctional breathingdysfunctional breathing syndromehyperventilationhyperventilation syndromeidiopathic hyperventilationpost-acute COVID syndrome

Identifiers

PMID36362710
PMCPMC9654772
OpenAlexW4308118444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.