2016
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01302-2016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Specific airway resistance in preschool children: why not panting after all?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(27 reference statements)
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless these figures are within those reported for sRaw in non-naïve adult subjects, i.e., 10% variability and 20% between day repeatability ( Peslin et al, 1987 ). Also, the estimated short term coefficient of variation for either sRa here is well within those reported for clinical measurements of sRaw – about 10% – in healthy or asthmatic children ( Bisgaard and Klug, 1995 ; Klug and Bisgaard, 1997 ; Coutier et al, 2015 ; Ioan et al, 2016 ). The between session repeatability was within 5% for all analog parameters, an important result in the context of between laboratory equipment comparison, while the between day variability in healthy adult subjects was reported to be respectively, about 6% for thoracic gas volume and 20% for sRaw ( Peslin et al, 1987 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Nevertheless these figures are within those reported for sRaw in non-naïve adult subjects, i.e., 10% variability and 20% between day repeatability ( Peslin et al, 1987 ). Also, the estimated short term coefficient of variation for either sRa here is well within those reported for clinical measurements of sRaw – about 10% – in healthy or asthmatic children ( Bisgaard and Klug, 1995 ; Klug and Bisgaard, 1997 ; Coutier et al, 2015 ; Ioan et al, 2016 ). The between session repeatability was within 5% for all analog parameters, an important result in the context of between laboratory equipment comparison, while the between day variability in healthy adult subjects was reported to be respectively, about 6% for thoracic gas volume and 20% for sRaw ( Peslin et al, 1987 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…47 Additionally, there is currently no published consensus on the best method to define abnormal LCI in preschool children. 22,25,48 Furthermore, although whole-body plethysmography and measurement of specific airway resistance (sRAW) are feasible in preschool children and need minimal cooperation, 49,50 whole-body plethysmography is only available in tertiary care pulmonary function laboratories and not feasible in most office practices. Therefore, we used spirometry, oscillometry, and MBW in this study as potentially feasible field tools to assess PFTs in preschool children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been suggested that a tidal breathing manoeuvre will increase the likelihood of a successful test in children. 26 We found that COPD patients were able to perform acceptable SR aw measurements, and volume of thoracic gas (VTG) measurements during occlusion, both in panting and tidal breathing manoeuvres. Although SR aw values were frequency dependent, lung volumes were not, as FRC was reported as the volume at the end of baseline tidal breathing, and not the volume during occlusion (ie VTG).…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 92%