ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Remote multidisciplinary diagnostic discussion and spirometry for ILD patients in rural Virginia.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) in rural areas face significant barriers to care and management of their disease. This study assessed the feasibility of remote ILD care using virtual multidisciplinary discussions (MDD) for accurate diagnosis and home-based spirometry for ILD management in rural Virginia.
methodsA prospective feasibility study was conducted involving patients with suspected ILD living in rural Virginia. Participants were enrolled through their community pulmonary provider for discussion in the remote Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) MDD. Following MDD recommendations were provided by the group and distributed back to their community physicians. These recommendations included additional diagnostic work-up as well as suggestions in adjustment in management. Additionally, subjects were also screened for home spirometry testing. The subjects were trained on the NuvoAir home spirometry system and followed for 6 months Results were then compared to in clinic spirometry at 3 and 6 months.
resultsRemote MDD discussions led to a change in diagnosis of 65% of subjects had a consensus diagnosis following MDD, including 47% of subjects with a change in preMDD diagnosis. For the 35% of subjects with determined “Unclassifiable ILD” referring physicians were provided additional diagnostic recommendations. Home spirometry was found to have excellent agreement with FVC measurement as compared to in clinic spirometry. Additionally, patient experience with home testing was strongly positive.
conclusionThe multimodal model of remote MDD and spirometric monitoring with home devices was determined to be acceptable and feasible for rural Virginian patients and their community pulmonary physicians. The benefit of this combination suggests an increase in diagnostic accuracy while providing support for rural providers on additional diagnostic testing and management for these patients as well as decreasing the patient burden of continued monitoring of these progressive diseases. However, additional exploration into the reasons for low referrals needs to be explored before this program could be further implemented.
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.