Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 785

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus statement for inert gas washout measurement using multiple- and single- breath tests

Open access
Robinson, Paul D., Latzin, Philipp, Verbanck, Sylvia, Hall, Graham L., Horsley, Alexander, Gappa, Monika, Thamrin, Cindy, Arets, Hubertus G.M., Aurora, Paul, Fuchs, Susanne I., King, Gregory G., Lum, Sooky, Macleod, Kenneth, Paiva, Manuel, Pillow, Jane J., Ranganathan, Sarath, Ratjen, Felix, Singer, Florian, Sonnappa, Samatha, Stocks, Janet, Subbarao, Padmaja, Thompson, Bruce R., Gustafsson, Per M.·2013·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Inert gas washout tests, performed using the single- or multiple-breath washout technique, were first described over 60 years ago. As measures of ventilation distribution inhomogeneity, they offer complementary information to standard lung function tests, such as spirometry, as well as improved feasibility across wider age ranges and improved sensitivity in the detection of early lung damage. These benefits have led to a resurgence of interest in these techniques from manufacturers, clinicians and researchers, yet detailed guidelines for washout equipment specifications, test performance and analysis are lacking. This manuscript provides recommendations about these aspects, applicable to both the paediatric and adult testing environment, whilst outlining the important principles that are essential for the reader to understand. These recommendations are evidence based, where possible, but in many places represent expert opinion from a working group with a large collective experience in the techniques discussed. Finally, the important issues that remain unanswered are highlighted. By addressing these important issues and directing future research, the hope is to facilitate the incorporation of these promising tests into routine clinical practice.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.00069712

Cites

57 of 57 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 57 references

Cited by

See all 785

Metadata

Authors
Robinson, P. D., Latzin, P., Verbanck, S., Hall, G. L., Horsley, A., Gappa, M., Thamrin, C., Arets, H. G. M., Aurora, P., Fuchs, S. I., King, G. G., Lum, S., Macleod, K., Paiva, M., Pillow, J. J., Ranganathan, S., Ratjen, F., Singer, F., Sonnappa, S., Stocks, J., Subbarao, P., Thompson, B. R., & Gustafsson, P. M.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2013-02-08
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
507-522
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2136962715
Cited by
785
References
57
FWCI
41.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Consensus statement for inert gas washout measurement using multiple- and single- breath tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00069712
The paper
Robinson, P. D., Latzin, P., Verbanck, S., Hall, G. L., Horsley, A., Gappa, M., Thamrin, C., Arets, H. G. M., Aurora, P., Fuchs, S. I., King, G. G., Lum, S., Macleod, K., Paiva, M., Pillow, J. J., Ranganathan, S., Ratjen, F., Singer, F., Sonnappa, S., . . . Gustafsson, P. M. (2013). Consensus statement for inert gas washout measurement using multiple- and single- breath tests. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00069712

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.