Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2024
[Repeatability of spirometry's expiratory flows].
Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 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
Background: The quality of the spirometry is estimated with criteria of acceptability and repeatability. The repeatability criteria accepted by consensus is < 0.150 L. Objective: To know the repeatability in quality A spirometry. Material and methods: Analytical cross-sectional design. The demographic variables and the 3 best spirometry curves with normal, suggestive of restriction and bronchial obstruction profiles were obtained from consecutive subjects of both genders from 18 to 80 years of age. The repeatability was analyzed with the mean difference (bias) and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: 630 curves from 210 subjects were accepted. Group age 60 ± 15 years. Female predominance 113 (53.8%), occupation: domestic services 61 (29%), and diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 70 (33.4%). The differences in the curves were < 0.150 L. The mean difference (bias) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval, 95% CI) of the forced expiratory volume in the first second were 1 vs. 2 maneuver: -0.01 (0.13, -0.14), 0.997 (95% CI 0.996, 0.998); 2 vs. 3 maneuver: 0.00 (0.13, -0.13), 0.997 (95% CI 0.996, 0.998), and maneuver 1 vs. 3: -0.00 (0.16, -0.17), 0.995 (95% CI 0.994, 0.996). Forced vital capacity: 1 vs. 2 maneuver: -0.01 (0.17, -0.18), 0.996 (95% CI 0.995, 0.997); 2 vs. 3 maneuver: 0.01 (0.17, -0.16), 0.997 (95% CI 0.0.996, 0.998), and maneuver 1 vs. 3: -0.00 (0.18, -0.19), 0.996 (95% CI 0.995, 0.997). Conclusion: The repeatability obtained in spirometry with quality A validates the use of the repeatability criterion of 0.150 L.
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.