Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2025
A comparison of pulmonary function pre and post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthy adults.
Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Pulmonary Function in the PURE-Colombia Cohort: A Comparative Analysis with Pre-COVID Values and Non-COVID-19 Controls.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Lung Function Impairment after Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Previously Healthy Individuals.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes of mild coronavirus disease 2019: Pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSARS-CoV-2 infection frequently involves the respiratory system and may impact on pulmonary function tests (PFT) of recovered individuals. Studies which compare post-COVID-19 PFT to pre-illness measurements are scarce. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of COVID-19 on PFT soon after infection.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, PFT were measured early following recovery from COVID-19 among healthy military aircrew. Spirometry values were compared to pre-COVID-19 measurements, and abnormality rates of lung volumes and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were assessed.
resultsThe study included 252 aviators, 97.6% males, mean age 34.9-years, following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants manifested mild symptoms (79.4%) or were asymptomatic (20.6%). Post-COVID-19 spirometry results 10.79 ± 5.67 days following infection were compared to measurements performed 41.3 ± 28.59 months earlier. Pre- and post-COVID-19 results were comparable, with similar minimal abnormalities rates (2% and 4.4%, respectively). In addition, there were no restrictive abnormalities following infection, and just 7.7% of individuals had a marginally low DLCO of 70-80% of predicted.
conclusionAmong vaccinated, healthy adults, mild COVID-19 had no significant impact on PFT early post-infection. The data suggest that systematic PFT testing might not be necessary for asymptomatic healthy individuals who recovered from mild COVID-19.
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.