ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2023
Comparison of different reference values for lung function: implications of inconsistent use among centers.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development of the Respiratory System During Adolescence.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Differences in severity grading of lung hyperinflation using GLIERJ open research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Different Spirometric Equations on Asthma Severity and Control Among Children in Jordan: A Retrospective Study.Pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Training machine learning-based spirometry reference equations: a comparison with GAMLSS and GLI reference equations.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Measurement and optimization of perioperative risk among patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), reference values based on sex, age, height and ethnicity are needed. In Norway, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) reference values remain widely used, in spite of recommendations to implement the more recent Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) reference values.
objectiveTo assess the effects of changing from ECSC to GLI reference values for spirometry, DLCO and static lung volumes, using a clinical cohort of adults with a broad range in age and lung function.
methodsPFTs from 577 adults (18-85 years, 45% females) included in recent clinical studies were used to compare ECSC and GLI reference values for FVC, FEV1, DLCO, TLC and RV. Percent predicted and lower limit of normal (LLN) were calculated. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between GLI and ECSC % predicted values.
resultsIn both sexes, GLI % predicted values were lower for FVC and FEV1, and higher for DLCO and RV, compared to ECSC. The disagreement was most pronounced in females, with mean (SD) difference 15 (5) percent points (pp) for DLCO and 17 (9) pp for RV (p < 0.001). With GLI, DLCO was below LLN in 23% of the females, with ECSC in 49% of the females.
conclusionsThe observed differences between GLI and ECSC reference values are likely to entail significant consequences with respect to criteria for diagnostics and treatment, health care benefits and inclusion in clinical trials. To ensure equity of care, the same reference values should be consistently implemented across centers nationwide.
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.