Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42548366›Full record

ArticleCHEST pulmonary2024

Strategies for the Management of a Pulmonary Function Laboratory.

Thomas W DeCato, Matthew J Hegewald

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. CHEST pulmonary · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas W DeCatoRespiratory Medicine and Exercise Physiology, The Lundquist Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA.
Matthew J HegewaldDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray.

Funding

Novel cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables to differentiate neuromuscular deconditioning from diseaseR01HL166850 · NHLBI · LUNDQUIST INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL INNOVATION AT HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Harry B Rossiter · 2023 to 2026
$3.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL166850
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are imperative to the diagnosis of people with respiratory symptoms and lung disease and to disease management. PFTs require expertise to obtain both high-quality tests and proficiency in test interpretation. In this review, we provide recommendations for obtaining high-quality test results in an efficient and cost-effective manner guided by available evidence and expert opinion. The medical director plays a critical role in pulmonary laboratory operations and ultimately is responsible for laboratory performance. Responsibilities of the medical director are reviewed and discussed. Quality control is an underappreciated part of the pulmonary laboratory that is that is necessary high-quality tests. What constitutes a complete PFT and the order that tests are performed may differ among laboratories. We suggest an approach to the performance of spirometry, bronchodilator-responsiveness testing, diffusing capacity, lung volumes, and tests of respiratory muscle strength that maximizes clinical usefulness and laboratory efficiency. Appropriate resources, time, and expertise are needed to run an efficient pulmonary function laboratory capable of performing high-quality testing.

Indexed as

pulmonary function laboratorypulmonary function testingpulmonary lab

Identifiers

PMID42548366
PMCPMC13417573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.