ArticleBMC primary care2026
Peak flow meter is a sensitive test for assessing airflow limitation in patients with respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma in primary health care in Brazil.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe peak flow meter is considered a complementary tool to spirometry for monitoring obstructive lung diseases. In many countries, spirometry is not easily accessible for diagnosing asthma in primary care. In this context, there has been growing interest in evaluating the role of the peak expiratory flow meter (PEFM) for asthma management, particularly in primary care settings. This study aims to assess the usefulness of PEFM in detecting airflow limitation (AFL), as identified by conventional spirometry, in a primary health care (PHC) setting in Brazil.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was nested within a clinical trial. Participants aged 6 to 65, both sexes, with a history of respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma and uncontrolled disease, from 28 PHC centers across all macroregions of Brazil were included. AFL was defined by spirometry according to international criteria and by PEFM when PEF was < 80% of the predicted value. The Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations were used for parameterization. The accuracy of PEFM in detecting AFL, as identified by spirometry, was analyzed, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were reported.
resultsAmong 298 participants, 107 (36%) had a confirmed asthma diagnosis. Spirometry identified AFL in 36% (n = 107) of participants, while PEFM detected AFL in 64.8% (n = 193). PEFM demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 82.4% (95% CI: 78.0%–86.7%) for detecting AFL compared with spirometry. Specificity was 44.4% (95% CI: 38.8%–50.0%), and AUC for the PEFM was 0.73. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for absolute PEFM values was 0.01 (95% CI: -0.18 to 0.20, p = 0.473).
conclusionsThe PEFM demonstrates high sensitivity for AFL, but it should be used with caution as a stand-alone tool for asthma diagnosis. Given its low cost and easy access in PHC settings, PEFM seems to be a useful initial screening tool for AFL, especially in resource-limited settings.
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.