ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
Is Spirometry a Sufficient Test for Assessing Respiratory Function after Lung Resection?
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prediction of postoperative functional status in non-small cell lung cancer patients based on preoperative assessment of physical and respiratory capacity is inadequate based on recent RCTs. MATERIAL AND
methodsProspectively collected spirometry data and the six-minute walk test results of 57 patients treated with lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer were analyzed. The tests were performed before surgery, and 30 and 90 days after lobectomy. All patients underwent a respiratory functional and physical capacity assessment.
resultsAll 57 patients underwent lobectomy. Before surgery, mean FEV1 was 2.4 ± 0.7 L, corresponding to %FEV1 of 88.3 ± 17.3%. The mean absolute and expected 6MWT distance was 548 ± 74.6 m and 108.9 ± 14.5%, respectively. At the first postoperative evaluation 30 days after surgery, FEV1 and %FEV1 decreased significantly by an average of 0.5 ± 0.3 L and 15.1 ± 10.7%, while 6MWT and expected 6MWT decreased minimally by an average of 1.0 m and 0.8%, respectively. Three months after lobectomy, FEV1 and %FEV1, compared with the initial assessment, decreased by an average of 0.3 ± 0.3 l and 7.8 ± 10.0%, while 6MWT and its expected score increased to 564.6 ± 84.6 m and 112.8 ± 15.8%, respectively.
conclusionsAfter lobectomy, FEV1 decreased slightly and less than expected, while 6MWT increased proportionally compared to the preoperative evaluation.
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.