ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Validation Criteria for P
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiotherapy Education and Breathing Retraining for Patients With Hyperventilation Syndrome: An Observational Study.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2026Article
- End-tidal COFrontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive exploration of unexplained dyspnoea in subjects with normal ejection fraction and low natriuretic peptides.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Article
- Unraveling persistent dyspnea after mild COVID: insights from a case series on hyperventilation provocation tests.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- A decrease in plant gain, namely COFrontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Physiotherapy management of Long-COVID: an evidence-based approach.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.