ArticleThoracic research and practice2025
Nationwide Assessment of Pulmonary Function Testing Practices and Safety Compliance During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 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.
- Temporal Trends in the Use of Pulmonary Function Tests Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience from a University Hospital in Türkiye.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) presented considerable challenges to health services, particularly for a routine assessment method, the pulmonary function tests (PFTs), which can generate aerosols and require sharing common surfaces. Despite these risks, there is a need to continue testing, especially for vulnerable patient groups. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn online survey was conducted from June 1 to June 26, 2020, to assess pulmonologists’ practices regarding PFTs before and during the pandemic’s first peak in Türkiye (March 11-May 20, 2020). The survey included 30 anonymized questions and received ethical committee approval. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences statistical package.
resultsTwo hundred and forty-three respondents across 59 cities participated in the study. 93% were pulmonologists. 77.4% of PFT labs have adequate ventilation by having a window enabling room direct air exchange. 27.2% of the PFT labs continued testing during the first peak of the pandemic. 83.3% of the responding centers applied triage before testing. Ongoing tests included spirometry (100%), bronchodilator reversibility testing (62.1%), and carbon-monoxide diffusion testing (16.7%). 49% of the PFT labs conducted fewer than four tests daily, while 21.2% performed more than eight. PFT technicians used personal protective equipment, with 67.7% using eye protection and 75.3 % wearing FFP3 or FFP2 masks.
conclusionThe survey found that pulmonologists have acted quickly and made moderate success in making preparations in PFT labs for the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, safer practice in PFT units still needs to be implemented.
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.