ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2026
Effect of device and expiratory maneuver technique on peak expiratory flow measurements.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeak expiratory flow (PEF) obtained from dedicated PEF meters and various types of spirometers is often used interchangeably in research, despite differences in both devices and expiratory maneuver technique. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of expiratory maneuver type and measurement device on PEF.
methodsWe recruited 20 healthy adults experienced in performing spirometry. Each subject performed three measurements using two expiratory maneuvers (a short, explosive maneuver and a long, spirometry-style maneuver) with four devices: the handheld microspirometers Medikro Duo and MIR Spirobank, the laboratory spirometer Vyntus Pneumo, and the Mini-Wright PEF meter.
resultsPEF differed significantly between devices (F(3,133) = 171.8, p < 0.001), but not between short and long expiratory maneuver techniques (F(1,133) = 2.24, p = 0.137). There was no significant interaction between device and technique (F(3,133) = 0.72, p = 0.543). Compared with the Mini-Wright, Spirobank yielded PEF values that were on average 87.1 L/min higher (74.6-99.7, p < 0.001), and Vyntus Pneumo 26.5 L/min higher (14.0-39.1, p < 0.001), whereas Medikro did not differ significantly from the Mini-Wright (mean difference -9.5 L/min, -22.1-3.1, p = 0.269). The pairwise differences between the three spirometers were all statistically significant (all p < 0.001).
conclusionsBecause short and long expiratory maneuver techniques yield similar results on PEF, future studies of home spirometry may compare the diagnostic performance of PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
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.