Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Reliability and usability of a portable spirometer compared to a laboratory spirometer.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical fitness and pulmonary function in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a comparative study with healthy peers.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- The Digital Evolution of the Medical Black Bag: Environmental Scan With Trend Analysis and Horizon Scanning.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of Impaired Spirometry in Patients with Myocardial Infarction: A Longitudinal Study of Two European Cohorts.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Observational
- The Current Application Status of Pulmonary Function Testing in West China: A Cross-Sectional Survey and Analysis.Canadian respiratory journal · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to spirometry remains limited due to the expense and inconvenience of stationary laboratory spirometers, which may compromise the diagnosis and management of chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Portable spirometers offer potential advantages over laboratory spirometers in terms of affordability, user-friendliness, and portability. The objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability and usability of a portable spirometer (Medcaptain VC-30 Pro) compared to a conventional laboratory spirometer (Jaeger MasterScreen PFT).
methodsIn this multi-center, randomized, open-label crossover study, 132 subjects from two hospitals were recruited to perform pulmonary function tests using both the portable spirometer and the laboratory spirometer. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV
resultsA total of 126 recruited participants achieved acceptable pulmonary function test results. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for primary outcomes FEV
conclusionsThe portable spirometer exhibited a strong correlation and agreement with a high-quality laboratory spirometer, as well as concordance in spirometric abnormality diagnosis and severity classification. Non-specialist can obtain acceptable results using this portable spirometer.
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.