Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40008172›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2025

Lung volumes by computed tomography and plethysmography: are we measuring the same? CanCOLD study data.

Tobias L Mraz, Miranda Kirby, Robab Breyer-Kohansal, Emiel F M Wouters, Wan Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tobias L MrazLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5523-2586
Miranda KirbyDepartment of Physics, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2951-784X
Robab Breyer-KohansalLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria.
Emiel F M WoutersLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria.
Wan TanCentre for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Measurement of lung volumes forms an integral part of pulmonary function testing. Lung volumes determined by computed tomography (CT) scans are well established, but the comparability to other methods like plethysmography in large cohorts remains in question. Methods: CanCOLD is a prospective longitudinal cohort study from Canada, including three matched groups of individuals with COPD I-II, smokers at risk and healthy controls. All participants underwent lung volume measurement by plethysmography and CT, using inspiratory and expiratory imaging. We compared total lung capacity (TLC) and residual volume (RV) in the different cohorts between plethysmography and CT. Results: Data from 1235 (518 females) individuals were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable in all three groups. Significant differences between CT and plethysmography could be observed in all groups, with consistently higher TLC and lower RV by plethysmography, respectively. Correlation was strong for TLC between the methods of measurement with a very stable bias of about 1.68 L for all groups, but the correlation was only low/moderate for RV. Variability of differences seemed to be higher for RV. No correction for supine position or dead airspace was used for CT-based measurements. Conclusion: Measurement of TLC and RV by plethysmography yields higher and lower values than by CT, respectively, so results of the different methods should not be used interchangeably.

Identifiers

PMID40008172
PMCPMC11849101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.