ArticleScientific reports2025
Experimental verification and comparative analysis of peak expiratory flow measuring devices.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive benchmarking of six commercially available peak expiratory flow meters (PFMs), using a precise experimental spirometric test bench. Eight peak expiratory flows (PEF) ranging from 59.40 to 688.80 L/min at three frequencies, were systematically applied to each device. Through a series of controlled tests, the devices' precision, accuracy, linearity, inter-device variability, and dynamic response were meticulously evaluated across their full measurement range. Results reveal distinct performance characteristics among models, with some demonstrating high precision and accuracy in intermediate flow ranges, whereas others exhibited significant deviations at lower or higher flows. Inter-device variability was minimal except for specific models at lower flow rates. Dynamic response at varying frequencies indicated negligible impact on device readings. This benchmarking provides valuable insights for clinicians and researchers selecting appropriate PFMs for respiratory assessments.
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.