ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Current use and future potential of oscillometry in UK lung function testing: a national survey.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing international momentum, uptake of oscillometry in routine lung function testing services in the United Kingdom (UK) is unclear.
objectivesEvaluate the current use of oscillometry in UK lung function services, identify key clinical applications, and explore barriers to wider adoption.
methodsA cross-sectional e-survey, including multiple-choice and free-text responses, was distributed to members of the Association for Respiratory Technology and Physiology (ARTP) and reported in line with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).
resultsA total of 42 National Health Service (NHS) respiratory services responded. Of these, 40% reported owning an oscillometry device, equally split between forced oscillation technique (Resmon Pro) and impulse oscillometry (Vyntus IOS), with one using both. Oscillometry is already used in clinical practice in 69% of these services, most commonly for adults (57%) but also in paediatrics (21%) and both (21%). It is primarily used in asthma (100%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (57%), and in 86% of cases for patients unable to perform technically acceptable spirometry. Among services without a device, 50% were actively considering purchasing within five years. The main barrier cited was funding (67%). A lack of clinical understanding was identified, with 86% of services perceiving respiratory consultants to have 'little' understanding of oscillometry, and 10% reporting 'none'. Almost all respondents (95%) supported the development of national guidance from ARTP outlining benefits, limitations and reporting standards.
conclusionDespite increasing interest, oscillometry is not yet routinely adopted across UK lung function services. It is predominantly used as an alternative to spirometry when technically acceptable results cannot be achieved and as an additional tool to support asthma care. This national survey highlights the need to improve awareness, training and standardisation. Collaboration with the ARTP to establish national guidance represents an important next step toward wider implementation in clinical practice.
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.