ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Single breath count test and its applications in clinical practice: a systematic review.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Single breath count test (SBCT) may be a reproducible, rapid, easy to perform and easy to interpret substitute to spirometry especially in low resource settings for certain conditions. Its interest has been rekindled with the recent COVID-19 pandemic and it can be done as a part of tele-medicine as well. Objectives: The objective of this review was to summarize the evidence of SBCT in clinical practice. Methods: The authors searched EMBASE, PubMed and Google Scholar for all the relevant articles as per exclusion and inclusion criteria. Two authors independently screened all the studies. Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. The systematic review was carried following the PRISMA guidelines. Results: After the rigorous process of screening, a total of 13 articles qualified for the systematic review. SBCT greater than 25 had sensitivity of greater than 80% in diagnosing myasthenia gravis exacerbation and SBCT less than or equal to 5 predicted the need for mechanical ventilation in Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) patients with 95.2% specificity. Also, Single breath count correlated significantly with forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) in children with pulmonary pathology and in patients with COVID-19 it was used to rule out the need for noninvasive respiratory support. Conclusion: SBCT will undoubtedly be an asset in low resource settings and in tele-medicine to assess the prognosis and guide management of different respiratory and neuromuscular diseases.
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.