ArticleRespiratory research2024
Remotely supervised spirometry versus laboratory-based spirometry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Respiratory research, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Approaches to Teaching Patients How to Use an App-Based Home Spirometer: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
- Assessing diagnostic accuracy for asthma with home spirometry in primary care.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- COMPAIR: a comparison of directly supervised clinicERJ open research · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has constrained access to spirometry, and the inherent risk of infectious transmission during aerosol-generating procedures has necessitated the rapid development of Remotely Supervised Spirometry (RSS). This innovative approach enables patients to perform spirometry tests at home, using a mobile connected spirometer, all under the real-time supervision of a technician through an online audio or video call.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we examined the quality of RSS in comparison to conventional Laboratory-based Spirometry (LS), using the same device and technician. Our sample included 242 patients, with 129 undergoing RSS and 113 participating in LS. The RSS group comprised 51 females (39.5%) with a median age of 37 years (range: 13-76 years). The LS group included 63 females (55.8%) with a median age of 36 years (range: 12-80 years).
resultsWhen comparing the RSS group to the LS group, the percentage of accurate Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) measurements was 78% (n = 101) vs. 86% (n = 97), p = 0.177; for Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) it was 77% (n = 99) vs. 82% (n = 93), p = 0.365; and for both FEV1 and FVC, it was 75% (n = 97) vs. 81% (n = 92), p = 0.312, respectively.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate no significant difference in the quality of spirometry testing between RSS and LS, a result that held true across all age groups, including patients aged over 65 years. The principal advantages of remote spirometry include improved access to pulmonary function tests, reduced infectious risk to curtail disease spread, and enhanced convenience for patients.
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.