ArticleAnnals of thoracic medicine
Conformity of spirometric tests with acceptability criteria and assessment of confounding factors in routine clinical practice.
Article in Annals of thoracic medicine. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpirometry is one of the basic methods used in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of respiratory disease. Spirometric test results that do not comply with international standards may be misinterpreted and lead to misdiagnosis and treatment. We aimed to assess the tests of patients that meet the "American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) 2019" recommendations, to identify the most common errors, and to explore patient characteristics possibly associated with failure to reach these standards.
methodsA total of 1000 spirometries performed between January and December 2023 were randomly selected retrospectively. Spirometric maneuvers were evaluated for meeting the acceptability criteria of the ATS/ERS 2019 guidelines.
resultsThe acceptability spirometry rate was 62.5%. The most frequently unmet criterion was failure to meet any of the three ends of forced expiration at 20.7%. There was no significant difference between male and female in terms of the acceptability of maneuvers. The 45-59 and 60-74 age groups were statistically more significant than the younger and older. Smoking, diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and number of spirometry practices were significantly associated with conformity to test acceptability criteria. The forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) divided by the forced vital capacity, FEV1, and forced expiratory times had a statistically significant independent effect on the acceptability of spirometric maneuvers.
conclusionNearly one-third of the tests performed by an experienced technician in a tertiary care hospital did not meet the acceptability criteria. Our study shows the importance of the learnability of maneuvers through repeated spirometry experiences.
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.