↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Use of the forced-oscillation technique to estimate spirometry values

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Use of the forced-oscillation technique to estimate spirometry values
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s143721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoichiro Yamamoto, Seigo Miyoshi, Hitoshi Katayama, Mikio Okazaki, Hisayuki Shigematsu, Yoshifumi Sano, Minoru Matsubara, Naohiko Hamaguchi, Takafumi Okura, Jitsuo Higaki

Abstract

Spirometry is sometimes difficult to perform in elderly patients and in those with severe respiratory distress. The forced-oscillation technique (FOT) is a simple and noninvasive method of measuring respiratory impedance. The aim of this study was to determine if FOT data reflect spirometric indices. Patients underwent both FOT and spirometry procedures prior to inclusion in development (n=1,089) and validation (n=552) studies. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to identify FOT parameters predictive of vital capacity (VC), forced VC (FVC), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). A regression equation was used to calculate estimated VC, FVC, and FEV1. We then determined whether the estimated data reflected spirometric indices. Agreement between actual and estimated spirometry data was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Significant correlations were observed between actual and estimated VC, FVC, and FEV1 values (all r>0.8 and P<0.001). These results were deemed robust by a separate validation study (all r>0.8 and P<0.001). Bias between the actual data and estimated data for VC, FVC, and FEV1 in the development study was 0.007 L (95% limits of agreement [LOA] 0.907 and -0.893 L), -0.064 L (95% LOA 0.843 and -0.971 L), and -0.039 L (95% LOA 0.735 and -0.814 L), respectively. On the other hand, bias between the actual data and estimated data for VC, FVC, and FEV1 in the validation study was -0.201 L (95% LOA 0.62 and -1.022 L), -0.262 L (95% LOA 0.582 and -1.106 L), and -0.174 L (95% LOA 0.576 and -0.923 L), respectively, suggesting that the estimated data in the validation study did not have high accuracy. Further studies are needed to generate more accurate regression equations for spirometric indices based on FOT measurements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2019.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,732
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,800
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#44
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.