ArticleInternal medicine journal2026
Implications of race-neutral equations on interpretation of lung function in Australia.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2026. 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.
- Race-neutral lung function equations and clinical interpretation in East Asian patients.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Interpreting race-neutral lung function equations: methodological considerations from an Australian study.Internal medicine journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn 2022, the American Thoracic and European Respiratory Societies recommended a shift to race-neutral equations for reporting and interpreting lung function tests. The impact of this change in the Australian population has not been comprehensively evaluated.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of adults evaluated at a multi-centre lung function laboratory in Australia between 2014 and 2024. Adults aged 40-70 years referred with respiratory symptoms or suspected obstructive airways disease were included (n = 6109). We compared the classification and severity of obstructive, restrictive, and mixed ventilatory defects using the race-neutral versus race-specific Global Lung Initiative reference equations.
resultsLung function tests from 6109 individuals with a mean (SD) age of 51.0 (13.7) years were evaluated (71% Caucasian, 9% South East (SE) Asian, 19% Other). Using race-neutral instead of race-specific equations resulted in 93% (5702 of 6109) remaining in the same classification. Among Caucasians, race-neutral equations increased the prevalence of obstruction (11%-13%), decreased restriction (8%-4%), and decreased mixed (4%-3%). Among SE Asians, race-neutral equations decreased the prevalence of obstruction (15%-10%) and increased restriction (6%-8%), and mixed was unchanged (2%). Among Others, race-neutral equations decreased the prevalence of obstruction (8%-7%), decreased restriction (21% to 17%) and decreased mixed (6% to 5%).
conclusionWhile race-neutral and race-specific equations had concordant classifications for most individuals, the change resulted in a relative decrease in the prevalence of restriction in Caucasians by 53% and obstruction in SE Asians by 35%.
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.