ReviewPediatric research2026
Use of respiratory oscillometry in infants: a scoping review.
Review in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- It's not all about small airways disease: key limitations of oscillometry interpretation.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We mapped the evidence on the use of respiratory oscillometry (RO) in infants through a scoping review of the literature. We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and clinical trial registries from inception to 1st September 2025. We included documents on the use of RO in infants up to 1 year. We assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Reporting adheres to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. We included 45 papers and 7 protocols. Five themes emerged: feasibility and methodology; RO for assessing pathological conditions and exposures; prognostication of respiratory outcomes; ability to evaluate treatment response in the neonatal intensive care (NICU); role in bronchodilator/bronchoconstrictor testing in infants with wheezing. RO was feasible and may be a reliable modality for epidemiological studies of early lung function determinants and long-term follow-up of infants. It may also support individualised respiratory care in the NICU, although it has been used primarily as a research tool in this setting. Wider adoption requires infant-specific devices, standardised methodologies, and reference values. IMPACT: This is the first comprehensive scoping review mapping the evidence on respiratory oscillometry in neonates and infants under one year of age. Respiratory oscillometry may be a reliable modality for long-term monitoring of lung function starting in infancy. Respiratory oscillometry may support individualised respiratory care and prognostication in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Identifiers
42092019What 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.