ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2023
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic outcomes of the 2023 race-neutral and 2012 race-specific global lung function initiative spirometry equations in healthy Algerian adults: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Critical analysis of spirometry interpretation in tuberculosis-related lung function impairment: a commentary on a Chinese study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the correlation between body mass index and lung function test parameters: a cross-sectional analytical study.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- What constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment in a pediatric population? A study design.La Tunisie medicale · 2024Article
- Routine pulmonary lung function tests: Interpretative strategies and challenges.Chronic respiratory diseaseReview
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
The diagnosis and management of the most prevalent chronic respiratory diseases partially rely on parameters obtained from pulmonary functional tests (PFTs), including spirometry, plethysmography, and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO) measurement. In practice, the interpretation of PFTs' parameters is based on international recommendations issued by renowned scientific societies such as the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS). The interpretation standards for PFTs established by ATS/ERS in 2005 were updated in 2022. According to the ATS/ERS-2022 standards, the interpretation of PFTs can be summarized in five steps. The first step involves comparing the determined parameters with those observed in a reference population of healthy individuals. This step helps determine whether the determined parameters are low, normal, or elevated. The second step aims to identify potential ventilatory impairments, such as obstructive and/or restrictive ventilatory impairments, which can be observed in certain chronic respiratory or extrarespiratory diseases. The third step involves assessing the severity of the identified ventilatory impairment or the decrease in DLCO. The fourth step entails evaluating the response to bronchodilator testing, if performed. Finally, if previous PFTs results are available, it is important to identify significant changes in certain PFTs parameters over time by comparing current and previous results. This clinical practice guide provides a comprehensive synthesis of the different steps in PFTs interpretation, taking into account the recommendations from ATS/ERS-2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38263920PMC11157243What 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.