The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Interpretation of Airway Response to a Bronchodilator: Epidemiologic Considerations
Abstract
Airways responsiveness to a bronchodilator is frequently measured to assist in determining the cause of respiratory symptoms. Clinically, a greater than 15% improvement in the FEV1 is often used to define the "increased" response indicative of asthma. However, unlike other tests of lung function, reference standards derived from "healthy" members of a general population sample have never been reported. As part of a health survey carried out in Alberta, Canada, 2,609 subjects completed a standardized respiratory symptom questionnaire and had FEV1 measured before and 20 min after inhaling terbutaline sulfate via a 750-ml spacer device. Among asymptomatic never-smoking subjects with a FEV1 greater than 80% of predicted, the upper 95th percentile of bronchodilator response (BDR), when expressed as 100 x (FEV1 postBDR - FEV1 preBDR)/predicted baseline FEV1 averaged 9%. This value remained remarkably stable across gender, age (7 to 75 yr), and height groups, and deviated to 6% only when baseline FEV1 was greater than 120% of predicted. Consistent with other respiratory function variables, in which the upper limit of normal is often defined as the upper 95th percentile, our population-derived reference values provide a conceptual definition of BDR that can easily be applied to define "increased" response in the clinical setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Interpretative strategies for lung function tests
Pellegrino, R., Viegi, G., Brusasco, V., Crapo, R. O., Burgos, F., Casaburi, R., Coates, A., van der Grinten, C. P. M., Gustafsson, P., Hankinson, J., et al. (2005) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.05.00035205 · Cited by 5,945
Drysdale, C. M., McGraw, D. W., Stack, C. B., Stephens, J. C., Judson, R. S., Nandabalan, K., Arnold, K., Ruano, G., & Liggett, S. B. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.19.10483 · Cited by 964
Metadata
- Authors
- Dales, R. E., Spitzer, W. O., Tousignant, P., Schechter, M., & Suissa, S.
- Venue
- American Review of Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-08
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 317-320
- ISSN
- 0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072742423
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Interpretation of Airway Response to a Bronchodilator: Epidemiologic Considerations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/138.2.317
- The paper
- Dales, R. E., Spitzer, W. O., Tousignant, P., Schechter, M., & Suissa, S. (1988). Clinical Interpretation of Airway Response to a Bronchodilator: Epidemiologic Considerations. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/138.2.317
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.