ArticleEuropean clinical respiratory journal2025
Can the single-breath alveolar volume be adjusted to estimate true total lung capacity?
Article in European clinical respiratory journal, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total lung capacity (TLC) measured with single-breath gas diffusion (TLCsb) is systematically lower than TLC measured with whole-body plethysmography (TLCwbp) especially in patients with obstructive defects. We aimed to develop and validate a regression correction equation to reduce the discrepancy between the two measurements of TLC. Second, we compared the ability to detect restriction (reduced TLC) from adjusted TLC measured by single-breath (TLCsb Methods: Lung function data from 800 consecutive patients were analysed with multivariable linear regression. A group of 530 were included for model development, and 270 were used for model validation. Results: TLCsb was found to be on average 1.1 L lower than TLCwbp ( Conclusions: After adjustment TLCsb was no longer significantly underestimated in obstructive and mixed restrictive-obstructive groups compared to TLCwbp. The adjustment can be used on individual subjects to estimate restriction via the TLCsb, thereby making the single-breath gas diffusion method a more valid alternative than without adjustment, when compared with the gold standard whole-body plethysmography to measure TLC.
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.