ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
A Normal Forced Vital Capacity Does Not Reliably or Equitably Exclude Restriction.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) guidelines for pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation recommend the use of a normal forced vital capacity (FVC) to exclude restriction. However, this recommendation is based upon a single study from 1999, which was limited to White patients, and used race-specific reference equations that are no longer recommended by ERS/ATS. We sought to reassess the support for this recommendation by calculating the negative predictive value (NPV) of a normal FVC in a diverse, multicenter cohort using race-neutral reference equations. Methods: We interpreted PFTs performed between 2000 and 2023 in two academic medical systems and in a national electronic health record (EHR) database. We calculated the NPV of a normal FVC to exclude restriction overall and among pre-specified racial and ethnic groups. Results: We included PFTs from 85990 patients. The prevalence of restriction was 35.1%. The overall NPV of a normal FVC to exclude restriction was 80.5% (95% CI 80.1% to 80.8%), compared to an NPV of 97.6% cited in support of ERS/ATS guidelines. The NPV ranged from 65.2% (95% CI 64.4% to 66.0%) among non-Hispanic Black patients to 85.9% (95% CI 85.6% to 86.3%) among non-Hispanic White patients. This difference was largely attributable to lower FVC z-scores among non-Hispanic Black patients. Conclusions: The NPV of a normal FVC is lower than has been previously reported and varies by race and ethnicity. The approach to PFT interpretation recommended by ERS/ATS guidelines results in the under-recognition of restriction, particularly among non-Hispanic Black patients.
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.