ArticlePloS one2024
Area under the inspiratory flow-volume curve (AIN): Proposed normative values.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Quantitative CT measurements of segmental bronchial changes during inspiratory and expiratory phases in healthy subjects.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleArea under expiratory flow-volume curve (AEX) has been shown to be a valuable functional measurement in respiratory physiology. Area under inspiratory flow-volume loop (AIN) also shows promise in characterizing upper and/or lower airflow obstruction.
objectiveswe aimed here to develop normative reference values for AIN, able to ascertain deviations from normal.
methodsWe analyzed AIN in 4,980 spirometry tests recorded in non-smoking, healthy individuals in the Pulmonary Function Testing Laboratory.
resultsThe mean (95% confidence interval, CI), standard deviation and median (25th-75th interquartile range) AIN were 16.05 (15.79-16.31), 9.08 and 14.72 (9.12-21.42) L2·sec-1, respectively. The mean (95% CI) and standard deviation of the best-trial measurements for square root of AIN (Sqrt AIN) were 3.84 (3.81-3.87) and 1.14; 4.15 (4.12-4.18) and 1.03 in men, and 2.68 (2.63-2.72) and 0.72 L·sec-1/2 in women. The mean (standard deviation) of pre- and post-bronchodilator Sqrt AIN were 3.71 (1.17) and 3.81 (1.19) L·sec-1/2, respectively. The mean (95% CI), standard deviation and lowest 5th percentile (lower limit of normal, LLN) of Sqrt AIN/Sqrt AEX (%) were 101.3 (100.82-101.88), 18.7, and 71.8%; stratified by gender, it was 102.2 (101.6-102.8), 18.6, and 72.8% in men, and 98 (96.9-99.2), 18.8, and 68.6% in women, respectively.
conclusionsThe availability of area under the inspiratory flow-volume curve (AIN) and the derived indices offers a promising opportunity to assess upper airway disease (e.g., involvement of larynx, trachea or major bronchi), especially because some of these measurements appear to be independent of age, race, height, and weight.
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.