ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2025
Comparison of Methods of Eliciting Vital Capacity: Forced Versus Slow Vital Capacity.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using a Vortex Whistle System to Estimate Phonatory Airflow via the Phonation Quotient.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethods to elicit the vital capacity (VC) include forced vital capacity (FVC) and slow vital capacity (SVC). Because the FVC maneuver can be affected by air trapping or inefficiencies in lung emptying vs. the SVC, the SVC-FVC difference may be substantial and diagnostically meaningful in elderly individuals and patients with respiratory obstruction. However, the degree of SVC-FVC difference in non-respiratory disordered individuals is unclear - some studies indicate a negligible difference, and other studies/guidelines suggest a mean difference in this target group up to 200 mL. This study examined the relationship between FVC vs. SVCs in a group of typical young adult speakers with three forms of measurement device (pneumotach-based; turbine flow meter; vortex whistle).
methodsFVC and SVCs were collected from 66 non-respiratory disordered subjects (18-30 years) using three methods: a pneumotach system (KoKo Sx1000); a turbine flow spirometer (Micro Spirometer); and 3-D printed vortex whistles and analysis software. FVC and SVC measures were compared and correlated.
resultsThe upper limit of the 95% CIs for the mean SVC-FVC difference were observed to be < 60-115 mL, depending upon the measurement system used. However, mean SVC-FVC differences were nonsignificant in all methods. Strong correlations between FVC vs. SVC were observed within each device (r's > 0.95), and both FVC and SVC measurements were highly correlated between devices (r's > 0.90).
conclusionMean SVC tends to be slightly greater than mean FVC, though this difference is nonsignificant in typical young adult subjects, making VC measures from SVC vs. FVC essentially interchangeable in this target group. Any SVC vs. FVC differences are detectable via both pneumotach-based spirometry and lower-cost technologies. The SVC method has several benefits vs. FVC for speech-language pathologists who may be conducting VC testing with a large variety of patient groups in diverse (often non-medical) settings.
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.