ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
The intra-breath changes of reactance at low frequency in impulse oscillometry: differentiating obstructive airway disease and Interstitial Lung Disease.
Article 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 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.
- It's not all about small airways disease: key limitations of oscillometry interpretation.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImpulse Oscillometry (IOS) helps understanding the mechanical properties of the respiratory system. Evaluating its role in distinguishing Obstructive Airway Disease (OAD) from Restrictive Lung Disease (RLD) remains underexplored.
methodsWe included the consecutive patients of both OAD (asthma and COPD), ILD (representing RLD) observing guideline recommendations and a cohort of 'healthy' subjects (asymptomatic, no disease clinico-radiologically and on spirometry). They underwent spirometry and impulse oscillometry concurrently on the same sitting. The comparison between the three groups included IOS derived R5, R10, R15, R20, R5-10, R5-15, R5-20, R10-20, X5, Rin5 (R5 inspiration), Rex5 (R5 expiration), Xin5 (X5 inspiration) and Xex5 (X5 expiration), Fres and AX. We proposed Δintrabreath-X5 (Xin5-Xex5) and a 'reactance variance index' (RVI) [(Xin5-Xex5)/Xex5 × 100] in the effort. Those showing highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.0001) were analysed with the ROC curves to determine the best differentiating values.
resultsWe included 104 OAD (COPD: 53, Asthma: 51), 75 RLDs and 43 healthy controls. Multiple resistance (R5, R5-10, R5-15, R5-20, and Rex5 Xex5) and reactance related (X5, Fres and AX) parameters displayed significant difference (p < 0.0001). The Xex5 and R5 turned out to be the best discriminators, with areas under the curve of 0.9244 and 0.9292, showing sensitivities of 88.57% and 85.85%, and specificities of 95.35% and 100%, respectively, using cut-off values of -2.49 and 5.04 in differentiating OAD from healthy subjects. Of the resistance factors (R5, R10, R15, R20, R5-15, R5-20, R-in-5) significantly differed between ILD and healthy cohorts; the R5 had the highest discriminating power (sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 100% to differentiate them. The Δintrabreath-X5 could best distinguish ILD from OAD with 88.06% sensitivity and 80.95% specificity, closely followed by Xin5/Xex5 and the RVI.
conclusionIOS can acceptably distinguish OAD from ILD using Δintrabreath-X5. The observation demands further validation.
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.