ArticleCureus2024
Assessing the Impact of the Updated 2021 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Criteria on Bronchodilator Responsiveness in Asthma.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between vitamin D levels and psychological stress-induced asthma prevalence: an untargeted metabolomics study combined with the NHANES database.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Comparison of ERS/ATS guidelines across versions: differences in the application of bronchodilator responsiveness criteria in pediatric asthma by age subgroups (2005 vs 2021).Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Potassium and survival outcomes in asthma patients: evidence from a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Evaluation of recently proposed thresholds to define spirometry bronchodilator response.ERJ open 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) Task Force released new technical standards on spirometry interpretation in 2021. Our study compares bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in asthma, evaluating the impact of the 2005 and 2021 ERS/ATS criteria and the influence of predictive equations. Methods A retrospective cohort study of adult patients with asthma was referred to spirometry with a BDR test at the Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia. The study included adult patients with asthma who underwent BDR testing in the Department of Respiratory Pathophysiology at the institute and had available data on height, gender, age, race, and eosinophil count. Results Among 197 patients, 69 were men (35.0%), the median age was 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 38-60), and a positive BDR test occurred in 50 (25.38%) according to the 2005 criteria and 42 (21.32%) according to 2021 criteria when using the Global Lung Initiative (GLI) reference equations. Strong agreement was observed between the ERS/ATS 2005 and 2021 criteria (Cohen's kappa index: 0.887, 95%, CI 0.810 to 0.963). Similar results were found with the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) and the European Community of Coal and Steel (ECCS) predictive equations. Positive BDR tests were common in patients with moderately severe and severe forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) impairment and were not associated with eosinophil count or total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels. Conclusion The introduction of the 2021 ERS/ATS criteria did not significantly alter the classification of BDR in the majority of asthma patients, ensuring diagnostic stability. Whichever criterion was used, positive BDR correlated with the extent of FEV1 impairment, but not asthma biomarkers.
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.