ArticleEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2026
Pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide in disease: a scoping review.
Article in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2026. 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
objectiveThis scoping review aims to map the available studies on single-breath pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (
methodsWe followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to identify studies on
resultsWe identified 1638 studies, of which 69 met the eligibility criteria. These studies represented respiratory (n=22), immunological/genetic/systemic (n=14), post-COVID-19 sequelae (n=13), cardiovascular (n=9), metabolic/endocrine/renal (n=6), environmental-related (n=3) and other (n=2) conditions. There was substantial heterogeneity in disease categories, sample sizes and reporting methods. Nearly half of the studies (49.3%) used convenience sampling, where participant selection processes are often poorly described; 62.3% included <50 participants. Only 18.8% reported a sample size calculation, and 10.1% registered or published a study protocol. Disparate findings within disease categories were often difficult to interpret; and small sample sizes limited generalisability. In some specific conditions,
conclusionSingle-breath
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.