Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36461083›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2022

Spirometry profiles among pregnant and non-pregnant African women: a cross-sectional study.

Jacktan Josephat Ruhighira, Fredirick L Mashili, Alexander Mtemi Tungu, Simon Mamuya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacktan Josephat RuhighiraDepartment of Physiology, University of Dodoma, P. O Box 395, Dodoma, Tanzania. jacktantz@gmail.com.
Fredirick L MashiliDepartment of Physiology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P. O Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Alexander Mtemi TunguDepartment of Physiology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P. O Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Simon MamuyaDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P. O Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZThe University of Dodoma · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpirometry is a commonly used lung function test. It assesses respiratory functions by measuring the air volume and the rate at which a person can exhale from lungs filled to their total capacity. The most helpful spirometry parameters are: forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF). Pregnancy derives an altered physiological state due to hormonal and anatomical changes that affect the respiratory system. Despite that, spirometry is less commonly done during pregnancy, and if done, test results are evaluated against non-pregnancy references.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore spirometry profiles in pregnant and non-pregnant women and describe their differences. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study involved age-matched pregnant and non-pregnant participants recruited from Mnazi Moja ANC and Muhimbili University (MUHAS). A digital spirometer was used to assess respiratory function. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 23. The mean spirometry values of pregnant participants were compared to those of non-pregnant participants using an independent sample t-test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsThe study included 92 pregnant and 98 non-pregnant participants subjected to spirometry. Both FVC and FEV1 values were significantly lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant participants (2.7 ± 0.5 L vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 L; p < 0.01 and 2.2 ± 0.4 L vs. 2.5 ± 0.4 L; p < 0.01 respectively). In addition, pregnant participants had significantly lower mean PEF values than their non-pregnant counterparts (303 ± 84 L/min versus 353 ± 64 L/min; p < 0.01).

conclusionSpirometry test values are lower in pregnancy than in non-pregnant participants. RECOMMENDATIONS: Interpreting the spirometry test values of pregnant women using references obtained from non-pregnant women may be inappropriate. Future studies should evaluate the appropriateness of predicting spirometry values of pregnant women using reference equations derived from non-pregnant women.

Indexed as

Black PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansSpirometryUniversitiesAfricaFEVFVCLungPEFPregnancyRespiratorySpirometryWomen

Identifiers

PMID36461083
PMCPMC9716166
OpenAlexW4311101972

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.