ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Measurement agreement between a portable and a conventional impulse oscillometry system: a two-centre method-comparison study.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImpulse oscillometry (IOS) enables tidal-breathing assessment of airway mechanics and is useful in patients with limited cooperation. With the growing use of portable IOS devices for bedside and community pulmonary function assessment, agreement with established laboratory systems requires evaluation.
objectiveTo assess measurement agreement and clinical classification agreement between the portable IOS 600 and the conventional Jaeger MasterScreen-IOS.
methodsIn this prospective two-centre method-comparison study with randomised measurement-sequence allocation, adult and paediatric participants underwent IOS measurement using both devices during a single visit. Core parameters (respiratory impedance at 5 Hz (Z5), resistance at 5 Hz (R5), resistance at 20 Hz (R20), reactance at 5 Hz (X5), reactance area and resonant frequency (Fres)) and secondary parameters were analysed. Interdevice agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis and coefficients of variation. Clinical classification agreement for core parameters was evaluated using Gwet's agreement coefficient 1 (AC1).
resultsOf 200 enrolled participants, 164 were included in the final paired analysis. Core IOS parameters showed high interdevice agreement, with ICCs ranging from 0.902 to 0.961. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated small mean interdevice differences; however, proportional bias was observed for Z5, R5 and Fres, indicating that agreement at markedly abnormal values should be interpreted cautiously. Coefficients of variation did not differ significantly between devices. Clinical classification agreement was strong to almost perfect, with Gwet's AC1 values of 0.90, 0.92, 0.91 and 0.96 for Z5, R5, R20 and X5, respectively. Adult-only and exploratory disease-subgroup analyses showed generally consistent agreement estimates. Most secondary resistance parameters showed strong-to-almost-perfect agreement, whereas reactance at 15 Hz and reactance at 25 Hz showed lower agreement.
conclusionsThe portable IOS 600 demonstrated high measurement agreement and clinical classification agreement with the MasterScreen-IOS for core IOS parameters under standardised testing conditions. Because the final cohort was predominantly adult, these findings are primarily applicable to adult participants. IOS 600 may serve as a complementary tool for airway function assessment, although further validation is needed in paediatric, disease-specific, bedside, primary care and community 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.