ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Diagnostic accuracy of the Voluntary Breath-Hold Test to discriminate normal vs. abnormal spirometry: a two-gate study.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Voluntary Breath-Hold Test (VBHT) is a simple, bedside, and rapid assessment that measures the duration of voluntary apnea. It has shown potential for clinical use, including as a triage tool prior to spirometry in primary care. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting abnormal pulmonary function before non-thoracic surgeries has not been established. This study aimed to determine the correlation between VBHT results, Maximal Voluntary Apnea Inspiratory Time (MVAIT) and Maximal Voluntary Apnea Expiratory Time (MVAET), and spirometry, the reference test for assessing pulmonary function.
methodsThis diagnostic-accuracy study included adults with normal spirometry and those with obstructive or restrictive ventilatory defects. Participants were divided into normal and abnormal spirometry groups. Maximal Voluntary Apnea Inspiratory Time (MVAIT) and Expiratory Time (MVAET) were evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to assess their accuracy in distinguishing between normal and abnormal spirometry patterns.
resultsThe study included 293 participants. MVAIT and MVAET were significantly lower for the abnormal (median: 29.32 s; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]: 25.99‒32.35 s and median: 20.40 s; 95% CI: 18.66‒22.88 s) than for the normal (median: 47.55 s; 95% CI: 43.93‒51.87 s and median: 28.53 s; 95% CI: 26.74‒30.63 s) group. For the prediction of normal spirometry, MVAIT ≥ 45.49 s and MVAET ≥ 32.86 s had sensitivity and specificity of (90.43%, 55.06%) and (90.43%, 33.71%), respectively.
conclusionVBHT is a bedside, low-cost, and safe method that shows moderate-to-good discriminative ability for identifying abnormal spirometry results. As an innovative adaptation of a long-known physiological maneuver, VBHT may serve as a rapid preliminary triage (rule-out) tool prior to formal spirometry, pending external validation in preoperative populations. CTRI REGISTER NUMBER - REBEC (REGISTRO BRASILEIRO DE ENSAIOS CLíNICOS): RBR-8hknmn.
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.