ArticleERJ open research2024
A comparison of respiratory oscillometry and spirometry in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: performance time, symptom burden and test-retest reliability.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small Airway Dysfunction in Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Current use and future potential of oscillometry in UK lung function testing: a national survey.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Respiratory oscillometry identifies disease progression in interstitial lung disease.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Observational
- Impulse oscillometry and traditional pulmonary function testing: correlation, advances and clinical implications.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Review
- Standard pulmonary function tests and respiratory oscillometry patterns in hypersensitivity pneumonitis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.BMJ open respiratory research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study question: In large multinational patient surveys, spirometry (which requires repeated, reproducible maximal efforts) can be associated with cough, breathlessness and tiredness, particularly in those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Oscillometry is an effort-independent test of airways resistance and reactance. We hypothesised that oscillometry would take less time to perform and would be associated with reduced symptom burden than spirometry. Patients and methods: Spirometry and oscillometry were performed in 66 participants with IPF and repeated 2 weeks later. We compared time taken to perform tests, symptom burden and test-retest reliability with Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: Oscillometry took significantly less time to perform than spirometry (mean -4.5 (99% CI -6.0 to -3.0) min) and was associated with lower symptom burden scores for cough (-1.3, 99% CI -1.7 to -0.8), breathlessness (-1.0, 99% CI -1.4 to -0.5), and tiredness (-0.5, 99% CI -0.9 to -0.2). On Bland-Altman analysis, all measures showed good agreement, with narrow limits of agreement and the mean bias lying close to 0 in all cases. The ICCs for forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity were 0.94 and 0.89, respectively, and ranged between 0.70 and 0.90 for oscillometry measures. Conclusion: Oscillometry is quicker to perform and provokes less symptoms than spirometry in patients with IPF.
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.