ArticleRespiratory medicine
Population reference equations for handheld peak expiratory flow in older U.S. adults.
Article in Respiratory medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental verification and comparative analysis of peak expiratory flow measuring devices.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Inverted L-shape association between a body shape index and peak expiratory flow among middle-aged and older adults: findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS).Lipids in health and disease · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeak expiratory flow (PEF) is a simple, inexpensive measure of respiratory effort and is a valuable predictor of health outcomes in older adults. Yet, there is a lack of epidemiological data validating PEF prediction equations among older adult populations, especially those ≥80 years. The National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) is a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults ages ≥65 years that offers a unique opportunity to develop PEF population reference equations.
methodsUsing a healthy subsample from the NHATS 2011 cohort (N = 1740; 68.9 % female; mean [SD] age = 77.0 [7.9] years), sex-specific reference equations were generated for PEF, measured via a handheld flow meter, using height and age as predictors. Reference equations for both sexes were validated against the NHATS 2015 cohort by testing measured vs. predicted PEF values. Additionally, new reference equations were compared to spirometry PEF reference equations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
resultsAfter applying NHATS 2011 reference equations to the NHATS 2015 cohort, measured vs. predicted PEF values were not significantly different (Ps > 0.05). The NHANES equations tended to slightly overestimate handheld PEF measurements in the NHATS 2015 cohort by an average of 29.3 L/min and 10.1 L/min in males and females, respectively.
conclusionsResults demonstrate the comparability of PEF reference equations from a handheld meter to spirometry reference equations in older adults. New reference equations can be applied to a traditionally undersampled population with an easily obtained and low-cost measure.
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.