ArticleERJ open research2025
Longitudinal variability of blood eosinophils impact lung function decline in the general population.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Updates in COPD Management: From Inflammatory Pathways to Targeted Therapies.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophils in relation to lung function, allergy and nasal polyps in asthma.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blood eosinophil counts (BECs) show moderate fluctuations over time but their long-term variability and clinical relevance in the general population remain unclear. We hypothesise a temporal variation of BECs over two visits (V1 and V2; 4.3±0.6 years) in the population-based Austrian LEAD study. Methods: Adults (n=6932) were categorised by their BEC levels: consistently high (BEC Results: Most individuals remain within their baseline BEC threshold (83.7% in BEC Conclusions: BEC is not a static biomarker; longitudinal variability predicts changes in lung function. Current guidelines rely on single time-point BEC measurements, but our findings suggest that repeated assessments and the use of thresholds to determine normal BEC variability over time may better guide treatment decisions in high-risk patients.
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.