ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026
Current Practices and Preferences Regarding Race and Spirometry Interpretation: A National Survey.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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.
- From Recommendation to Reality: Implementing Global Lung Initiative (GLI) Global Amid Uncertainty.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The American Thoracic Society recently recommended the use of race-neutral rather than race-specific equations for spirometry interpretation. The uptake of and clinicians' opinions about these practices remain unclear. Research Question: What are clinicians' current practices and opinions around race-specific vs race-neutral reference equations? Study Design and Methods: We conducted a national survey of pulmonologists identified through the American Lung Association and Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation. Participants completed an electronic survey about their opinions and practices related to race in spirometry reference equations. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Results: We received and analyzed 66 responses (29% response rate). Respondents had a median age of 48 years (interquartile range, 41-55), and 63 (95%) worked in an academic setting. A total of 34 respondents (54%) reported that their pulmonary function testing laboratory is already using a race-neutral equation. Most (n = 42, 64%) recommended that race-neutral equations should be used for spirometry interpretation, and 6 (9%) recommended race-specific equations alone should be used. When considering alternatives to race-specific equations, the use of Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI)-Global or GLI-Other as a single race-neutral equation was the most preferred alternative (n = 47, 71%). The most cited advantages of race-neutral equations were (1) improving equity, fairness, and bias (48%); and (2) improving accuracy and classification of disease (40%). The most cited disadvantages were (1) misclassification of respiratory disease (25%) and (2) loss of precision of lung function estimates (13%). Interpretation: Our results show that most academic pulmonologists would prefer to use a race-neutral rather than race-specific equation for spirometry interpretation. Although most have already transitioned to a race-neutral approach, significant gaps in implementing GLI-Global remain and indicate needs for ongoing research and education.
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.