ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Reliability and Validity of Computerized Adventitious Respiratory Sounds in People with Bronchiectasis.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Computerized adventitious respiratory sounds (ARS), such as crackles and wheezes, have been poorly explored in bronchiectasis, especially their measurement properties. This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of ARS in bronchiectasis. Methods: Respiratory sounds were recorded twice at 4 chest locations on 2 assessment sessions (7 days apart) in people with bronchiectasis and daily sputum expectoration. The total number of crackles, number of wheezes and wheeze occupation rate (%) were the parameters extracted. Results: 28 participants (9 men; 62 ± 12 y) were included. Total number of crackles and wheezes showed moderate within-day (ICC 0.87, 95% CI 0.74−0.94; ICC 0.86, 95% CI 0.71−0.93) and between-day reliability (ICC 0.70, 95% CI 0.43−0.86; ICC 0.78, 95% CI 0.56−0.90) considering all chest locations and both respiratory phases; wheeze occupation rate showed moderate within-day reliability (ICC 0.86, 95% CI 0.71−0.93), but poor between-day reliability (ICC 0.71, 95% CI 0.33−0.87). Bland−Altman plots revealed no systematic bias, but wide limits of agreement, particularly in the between-days analysis. All ARS parameters correlated moderately with the amount of daily sputum expectoration (r > 0.4; p < 0.05). No other significant correlations were observed. Conclusion: ARS presented moderate reliability and were correlated with the daily sputum expectoration in bronchiectasis. The use of sequential measurements may be an option to achieve greater accuracy when ARS are used to monitor or assess the effects of physiotherapy interventions in this population.
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.