ArticlePloS one2025
An updated comparison of standard and novel FEV1 indices' association with all-cause mortality.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- The allure and pitfalls of physiological quotients in lung function interpretation.Respiratory research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleCurrent recommendations for defining FEV1 abnormalities are based on Z-score cutoffs. Alternative approaches may better correlate with patient-related outcomes, including mortality.
objectiveThis study evaluates the association between FEV1 value and mortality in six FEV1 indices in a large, U.S based cohort.
methodsThis is a cohort of 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) participants with spirometry and linked mortality data through 2019. We transformed FEV1 values to the following indices: raw FEV1, FEV1-Z scores (FEV1-Z), FEV1-Percent Predicted (FEV1-PP), FEV1/Height2 (FEV1/Ht2), FEV1/Height3 (FEV1/Ht3), and FEV1-Q. We compared association with all-cause mortality between lowest and highest FEV1 deciles of each index using Cox Proportional Hazards models. Two sensitivity analyses were performed, one after applying NHANES sample weighting and one including lower quality spirometry. A subgroup analysis of participants with airflow obstruction, defined as FEV1/FVC ≤ LLN, was performed.
resultsOf the 12,994 included participants, 971 (7.5%) had died. The majority (56.2%) were nonsmokers and 13.2% had an FEV1/FVC < LLN. When comparing the most to least severe deciles of FEV1, the indices with the largest magnitude unadjusted hazard ratios were FEV1/ht3 (HR 26.4, 95%CI 16.0-43.6), FEV1/ht2 (HR 21.8, 95%CI 13.8-34.7), FEV1-Q (HR 17.5, 95%CI 11.6-26.5), and FEV1 (HR 14.4, 95%CI 9.7-21.5). After adjusting for age, gender, and tobacco pack-years, FEV1/Ht3 (HR 4.9, 95%CI 2.6-9.3) and FEV1/Ht2 (HR 4.8, 95%CI 2.7-8.7) had the highest hazard ratios, however the confidence intervals had significant overlap with other indices. In adjusted analyses, the C-statistic (0.81) was the same across indices. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses yielded a similar pattern.
conclusionsReference-range-independent indices based on absolute FEV1 (raw FEV1, FEV1-Q, FEV1/Ht2, FEV1/Ht3) are equally or more strongly associated with mortality than reference-range- dependent FEV1 indices (FEV1-Z scores, FEV1-Percent Predicted) in a large U.S. cohort.
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.