ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2026
Application of the PDCA Cycle to Improve Quality Control in Pulmonary Function Testing for Early Screening of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 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
objectiveThis study aimed to improve the quality of pulmonary function testing (PFT) used for early screening of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within a regional medical consortium by applying the Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) quality improvement framework.
methodsThis study was conceptualized as a quality improvement (QI) initiative and is documented in compliance with the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines. A baseline situational assessment within the medical consortium identified insufficient expiratory effort as the primary factor affecting PFT quality. Subsequent root cause analysis indicated that inadequate professional training, absence of continuous supervision, and lack of standardized pre-examination procedures were the main contributing factors. Based on these findings, targeted quality improvement measures were implemented using the PDCA cycle. These measures included structured training programs, optimization of testing processes, and establishment of a dedicated quality control team. PFT qualification rates were compared before and after implementation. Additionally, a non-PDCA consortium in the same region that did not apply PDCA-based initiatives served as a comparison group, and qualification rates between the two consortia were evaluated after 6 months.
resultsIn the PDCA consortium, the PFT qualification rate increased from 49.38% prior to implementation to 95.08% following implementation and remained consistently above 95%. In contrast, the non-PDCA consortium achieved a maximum qualification rate of only 55.78% during the same period.
conclusionApplication of the PDCA framework effectively optimized PFT procedures and improved overall testing quality within the PDCA consortium.
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.