ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Agreement between observed and predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide after anatomic lung resection.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. 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.
- A transfer learning-based hybrid deep- and machine-learning regression approach for predicting the postoperative pulmonary function.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Association of forced expiratory volume in 0.5 seconds/forced vital capacity ratio with all-cause mortality in adults: a cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Pulmonary function prediction in lung cancer resection candidates: the latest insights.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Article
- An analysis of residual lung volume changes after segmentectomy based on three-dimensional computed tomography.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite its importance in clinical practice, clinical guideline pathway selection and as an outcome in clinical trials, little work has been undertaken to understand the agreement between expected lung function loss and actual observed values. This is particular pertinent in view of the unexpected findings of JCOG 0802 and CALBG 140503 demonstrating no clinically meaningful difference in lung function loss between the sub-lobar resection and lobectomy arm. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on preoperative and postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DL Results: Scatter plots for effort-dependent measures suggested the tendency for underprediction (observed values were higher than predicted) for FEV1 and FVC but good agreement for DL Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that effort-dependent parameters of lung function including FEV1 and FVC tends to overestimate the amount of lung function loss after anatomic lung resection, clinicians should be cautious in using these measures to determine suitability of surgery based on current established guidelines. However, independent measures such as DL
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.