ArticleHeliyon2023
Effects of repetition as training and incentives on the performance in pulmonary function tests in healthy volunteers.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there a 'learning effect' on serial lung function assessments?Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Pulmonary Dysfunction in Children with Dystrophinopathy: A Cross-Sectional Study - Correspondence-2.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Seasonal Decline in Lung Function Among Residents of Northern Thailand: A Longitudinal Study Before and After the Haze Period.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is a central part of diagnosis and treatment monitoring in respiratory medicine. Few studies have investigated whether repeated PFT or training can significantly influence performance. To investigate potential training effects of repeated PFT, 30 healthy volunteers underwent daily and weekly repeated PFT with spirometry over 10 weeks. The study included 22 females and 8 males with a mean age of 31.8 years ± 15 (SD), a mean weight of 66.3 kg ± 14.5 (SD) and a mean BMI of 22.4 ± 3.3 (SD). The first 5 PFTs were performed on 5 consecutive days, followed by 3 PFTs once a week on the same day of the week. Subsequently, 5 measurements were taken daily for 5 consecutive days. After these 13 appointments in 5 weeks, participants were randomly assigned to the control or incentive group, with stratification for age and gender. The incentive group had the opportunity to win money (200 €) for the highest increase in forced vital capacity (FVC). PFTs were performed once a week on the same day of the week as before for 5 more times. Motivation was assessed by a questionnaire before the 1st, 9th and 18th measure of PFT at three time points throughout the study. An increase in PFT was observed with mean increases of 473 [ml] in FVC, 395 [ml] in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and 1.382 [litres/second] in peak expiratory flow (PEF) after four days of daily PFT. These increases did not persist and spirometric data returned to baseline after one week. After allocation, participants in the incentive group did not increase their FVC, FEV1 or PEF compared to the control group. The incentive group showed higher motivation than the control group, even before allocation. Repeated daily PFT could induce short-term increases, but PFT does not fluctuate significantly in the long term. External influences that affect motivation could not consistently increase PFT. For clinical practice, it can be concluded that PFT does not necessarily require extended training to ensure reliability if reproducibility criteria are met.
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.