Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,049

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardized challenge testing with pharmacological, physical and sensitizing stimuli in adults

Open access
Sterk, P.J., Fabbri, L.M., Quanjer, Ph.H., Cockcroft, D.W., O'Byrne, P.M., Anderson, S.D., Juniper, E.F., Malo, J.-L.·1993·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, also called chronic airflow limitation (CAL)) are the most frequent diagnoses in patients with intrathoracic airways obstruction [1]. Often these patients show a spontaneous variability in the degree of airways obstruction, which can be documented by serial lung function measurements. Large variability in the degree of airways obstruction is indicative of an increased susceptibility of the patient to environmental stimuli that cause acute airway narrowing. Knowledge of the potential severity of these episodes of acute airways obstruction is of clinical interest. Therefore, several quantitative measures of the response of the airways to bronchoconstrictors in vivo have been advocated over the past two decades. The objective of the present guidelines is to address the methodological issues of the various available techniques, and to provide up-to-date international guidelines on standardization. The present recommendations might not represent the potentially best methodologies. However, they do represent the currently validated techniques, by which interchangeable results can be obtained among laboratories. Variable airways obstruction can be mimicked in the laboratory by challenge tests with bronchoconstrictive stimuli (fig. 1) [2]. This enables one to measure the degree of the so-called «airway responsiveness» of the subject to a particular agent. Since the bronchoconstrictive response varies from one stimulus to another, one needs to specify the challenging agent. Therefore, the term «nonspecific» airway responsiveness should be abandoned. Figure 1– Dose-response curves to inhaled methacholine using the dosimeter method in 3 subjects. Airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma is characterised by a leftward shift of the curve (hypersensitivity), a steeper slope (hyperreactivity), and an increase in maximal response (excessive airway narrowing). Modified from de Pee et al. [243] with permission. Airway hyperresponsiveness refers to an exaggerated response to the bronchoconstrictor. This is reflected by an increased sensitivity to the stimulus, which …

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 · 10.1183/09041950.053s1693

Cites

128 of 128 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 128 references

Cited by

See all 1,049

Metadata

Authors
Sterk, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Quanjer, P. H., Cockcroft, D. W., O'Byrne, P. M., Anderson, S. D., Juniper, E. F., & Malo, J.-L.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
1993-03-01
Volume
6
Issue
Suppl 16
Pages
53-83
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W121149184
Cited by
1,049
References
128
FWCI
14.15
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: Standardized challenge testing with pharmacological, physical and sensitizing stimuli in adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09041950.053s1693
The paper
Sterk, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Quanjer, P. H., Cockcroft, D. W., O'Byrne, P. M., Anderson, S. D., Juniper, E. F., & Malo, J.-L. (1993). Standardized challenge testing with pharmacological, physical and sensitizing stimuli in adults. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09041950.053s1693

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.