Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 649

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations for a Standardized Pulmonary Function Report. An Official American Thoracic Society Technical Statement

Culver, Bruce H., Graham, Brian L., Coates, Allan L., Wanger, Jack, Berry, Cristine E., Clarke, Patricia K., Hallstrand, Teal S., Hankinson, John L., Kaminsky, David A., MacIntyre, Neil R., McCormack, Meredith C., Rosenfeld, Margaret, Stanojevic, Sanja, Weiner, Daniel J.·2017·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Thoracic Society committee on Proficiency Standards for Pulmonary Function Laboratories has recognized the need for a standardized reporting format for pulmonary function tests. Although prior documents have offered guidance on the reporting of test data, there is considerable variability in how these results are presented to end users, leading to potential confusion and miscommunication. METHODS: A project task force, consisting of the committee as a whole, was approved to develop a new Technical Standard on reporting pulmonary function test results. Three working groups addressed the presentation format, the reference data supporting interpretation of results, and a system for grading quality of test efforts. Each group reviewed relevant literature and wrote drafts that were merged into the final document. RESULTS: This document presents a reporting format in test-specific units for spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusing capacity that can be assembled into a report appropriate for a laboratory's practice. Recommended reference sources are updated with data for spirometry and diffusing capacity published since prior documents. A grading system is presented to encourage uniformity in the important function of test quality assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The committee believes that wide adoption of these formats and their underlying principles by equipment manufacturers and pulmonary function laboratories can improve the interpretation, communication, and understanding of test results.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.201710-1981st

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 649

Metadata

Authors
Culver, B. H., Graham, B. L., Coates, A. L., Wanger, J., Berry, C. E., Clarke, P. K., Hallstrand, T. S., Hankinson, J. L., Kaminsky, D. A., MacIntyre, N. R., McCormack, M. C., Rosenfeld, M., Stanojevic, S., & Weiner, D. J.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2017-12-01
Volume
196
Issue
11
Pages
1463-1472
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2773049281
Cited by
649
References
30
FWCI
39.89
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: Recommendations for a Standardized Pulmonary Function Report. An Official American Thoracic Society Technical Statement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201710-1981st
The paper
Culver, B. H., Graham, B. L., Coates, A. L., Wanger, J., Berry, C. E., Clarke, P. K., Hallstrand, T. S., Hankinson, J. L., Kaminsky, D. A., MacIntyre, N. R., McCormack, M. C., Rosenfeld, M., Stanojevic, S., & Weiner, D. J. (2017). Recommendations for a Standardized Pulmonary Function Report. An Official American Thoracic Society Technical Statement. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201710-1981st

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.