ArticleBMC research notes2024
Quality of spirometry tests in the field of occupational health.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Novel Respiratory Disease Diagnosis Tool: Development of an Au-ReSSmall science · 2026Article
- Assessment of forced spirometry quality in healthy adults at 2,700 meters above sea levelBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe spirometry test is a valuable test to evaluate the performance of the respiratory system. The interpretation of the results is highly dependent on the quality of its performance, while the inappropriate quality results in unwanted consequences for individuals and the healthcare system. This study investigated the quality of spirometry tests performed in occupational health.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, the quality of 776 spirometry tests in different occupational centers by the specialists in Rasht, Iran, in 2020, based on the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), was investigated. The quality and success rate of the test and the demographical characteristics of the operators and the participants were collected. All data was analyzed using SPSS software version 20.
resultsOut of 776 spirometry tests, about 69.7% were unacceptable. Among the unacceptable tests, a pause error between inhalation and exhalation was identified in 7.4% of tests. Additionally, 4.6% of the unacceptable tests exhibited a cough error within the first second, while an exhalation error of less than six was observed in 85%. Repeatability errors were found in 60.9% of the tests. Furthermore, among some errors, the communication error between the characteristics of the technicians and the test performance errors were evident.
conclusionAccording to the results, most of the performed tests were unacceptable with no repeatability, which indicated that the validity and quality of spirometry tests and their interpretation were inappropriate in the field of occupational health in Rasht, Iran.
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.