Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2024
The total-breath method yields higher values of DLCO and TLC than the conventional method.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04531293 (Mono-centred, Controlled Cross-over Study Comparing Pressure Based, and Dilution Based Total Lung Capacity Measurements in COPD Patients and Healthy Subjects Using Two Commercially Available Devices for Lung Function Diagnostics), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Mono-centred, Controlled Cross-over Study Comparing Pressure Based, and Dilution Based Total Lung Capacity Measurements in COPD Patients and Healthy Subjects Using Two Commercially Available Devices for Lung Function Diagnostics
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Singing for adults with chronic respiratory disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Measurement and Significance of the Diffusing Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide.Clinics in chest medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 2017 ATS/ERS technical standard for measuring the single-breath diffusing capacity (DLCO) proposed the "rapid-gas-analyzer" (RGA) or, equivalently, "total-breath" (TB) method for the determination of total lung capacity (TLC). In this study, we compared DLCO and TLC values estimated using the TB and conventional method, and how estimated TLC using these two methods compared to that determined by body plethysmography.
methodA total of 95 people with COPD (GOLD grades 1-4) and 23 healthy subjects were studied using the EasyOne Pro (ndd Medical Technologies, Switzerland) and Master Screen Body (Vyaire Medical, Höchberg, Germany).
resultsOn average the TB method resulted in higher values of DLCO (mean ± SD Δ = 0.469 ± 0.267; 95%CI: 0.420; 0.517 mmol*min-1*kPa-1) and TLC (Δ = 0.495 ± 0.371; 95%CI: 0.427; 0.562 L) compared with the conventional method. In healthy subjects the ratio between TB and conventional DLCO was close to one. TLC estimated using both methods was lower than that determined by plethysmography. The difference was smaller for the TB method (Δ = 1.064 ± 0.740; 95%CI: 0.929; 1.199 L) compared with the conventional method (Δ = 1.558 ± 0.940; 95%CI: 1.387; 1.739 L). TLC from body plethysmography could be estimated as a function of TB TLC and FEV
conclusionThe total-breath method yielded higher values of DLCO and TLC than the conventional analysis, especially in subjects with COPD. TLC from the total-breath method can also be used to estimate plethysmographic TLC with better accuracy than the conventional method. The study is registered under clinicaltrial.gov NCT04531293.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.