ArticleFrontiers in allergy2026
Comparison of two respiratory oscillometers in patients with a broad range of lung function patterns.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oscillometry provides a non-invasive assessment of respiratory system mechanics and has shown potential for early detection of lung disease. However, differences in device hardware and signal processing may limit comparisons between devices. The objective of this study was to evaluate agreement between two commercial forced oscillometry devices, Tremoflo C-100 (Thorasys Medical Systems, Canada) and Resmon Pro (Restech srl, Italy) in patients with a spectrum of abnormal lung physiology. Methods: 49 patients with chronic lung disease and 27 healthy volunteers completed paired oscillometry using both devices in an alternating order. Measurements of resistance at 5 Hz (R5), resistance between 5 and 19 Hz (R5-19), reactance at 5 Hz (X5), the resonant frequency of the lungs (Fres), and area of reactance (AX) were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and effect size calculations. Results: Significant differences were found between devices for all impedance measurements ( Conclusion: Systematic biases and wide limits of agreement indicate that the devices should not be used interchangeably for longitudinal patient monitoring. Standardization of oscillometry device signal generation and processing is necessary to enable accurate cross-device comparison in both clinical and research applications.
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.