ArticleERJ open research2023
Feasibility and value of a domiciliary spirometry programme in the assessment of severe asthma: a real-world evaluation.
Article in ERJ open research, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing procedural quality and efficiency of methacholine bronchial challenge tests in patients with suspected cough-variant asthma: a quasi-experimental study utilizing nurse-patient communication and respiratory training.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Viability of a new home program of forced spirometry with bronchodilator response measurement in the assessment of patients with asthma.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Integration of lung function data: turning snapshots into stories.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Article
- Innovation in Home Spirometry, as a New Out-of-Hospital Circuit in Patients: More Reality, Less Fiction.Open respiratory archives · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Domiciliary spirometry (DS) is a novel tool that is widely employed in the assessment of respiratory disease. We assessed real-world feasibility, effectiveness and value of a physiologist-led home spirometry programme in patients with treatment-refractory severe asthma. Methods: Patients were referred and provided with a hand-held DS device. Patients completed baseline measurements in a physiologist-led virtual clinic and were instructed to provide further values during any periods of respiratory symptoms. Outcome measures included prevalence of new obstructed events, DS adherence and uptake of this approach. Results: 112 patients were enrolled from November 2020 to January 2023. 102 individuals, mean±sd age 44±13 years (86% female) with median (IQR) forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 88% (77-97%), successfully recorded baseline spirometry values. During follow-up (24 months), 11 (11%) were identified with new obstructive spirometry and were subsequently able to be commenced on biologic therapy. Patient engagement was poor with median (IQR) of 4 (2-6) attempts of contact made before baseline values were recorded, and 2 (1-3) attempts required to record technically acceptable values. Continued DS use was suboptimal; 34% failed to use their device after baseline and only 10% continued at the end of the study period. The cost of DS measurements was greater than a single hospital-based visit but enables multiple event capture. Conclusion: Overall, DS measurement uptake was poor, with a minority of patients continuing to use the device at the end of the study period. However, for those that engage, DS provides an alternative approach to traditional hospital-based spirometry measurements that can alter clinical management.
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.