Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38999220›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Pulmonary Function Tests: Easy Interpretation in Three Steps.

Josuel Ora, Federica Maria Giorgino, Federica Roberta Bettin, Mariachiara Gabriele, Paola Rogliani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Early dysanapsis in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia: implications for lifelong lung disease.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Response to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Josuel OraDivision of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9877-7851
Federica Maria GiorginoDivision of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Federica Roberta BettinUnit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", 00133 Rome, Italy.
Mariachiara GabrieleDivision of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Paola RoglianiDivision of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5040

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are pivotal in diagnosing and managing a broad spectrum of respiratory disorders. These tests provide critical insights into lung health, guiding diagnoses, assessing disease severity, and shaping patient management strategies. This review addresses the complexities and nuances inherent in interpreting PFT data, particularly in light of recent updates from the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS). These updates have refined interpretive strategies, moving away from definitive diagnostic uses of spirometry to a more probabilistic approach that better accounts for individual variability through the use of Z-scores and lower limits of normal (LLNs). Significantly, this narrative review delves into the philosophical shift in spirometry interpretation, highlighting the transition from direct clinical diagnostics to a more nuanced evaluation geared towards determining the likelihood of disease. It critiques the reliance on fixed ratios and emphasizes the need for reference values that consider demographic variables such as age, sex, height, and ethnicity, in line with the latest Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations. Despite these advances, challenges remain in ensuring uniformity across different predictive models and reference equations, which can affect the accuracy and consistency of interpretations. This paper proposes a streamlined three-step framework for interpreting PFTs, aiming to unify and simplify the process to enhance clarity and reliability across various medical specialties. This approach not only aids in accurate patient assessments but also mitigates the potential for misdiagnosis and ensures more effective patient management. By synthesizing contemporary guidelines and integrating robust physiological principles, this review fosters a standardized yet flexible approach to PFT interpretation that is both scientifically sound and practically feasible.

Indexed as

dysanaptic patternsinterpretationlung volumesPRISmspirometry

Identifiers

PMID38999220
PMCPMC11242573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.