Cited by 47Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchSmoking Behavior and CessationAsthma and respiratory diseases

Relative and absolute lung function change in a general population aged 60-102 years

Open access
Luoto, Johannes, Pihlsgård, Mats, Wollmer, Per, Elmståhl, Sölve·2019·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Data on longitudinal lung function change in the elderly are scarce. Uncertainty remains about whether to use absolute or relative change and how it relates to subject demographics. We studied absolute and relative forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) change in a population-based geriatric sample using a repeated measurements model adjusted for age, sex, smoking habits, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, educational level, occupation, alcohol consumption, C-reactive protein (CRP) and body mass index. 3736 participants aged 60–102 years completed between one and five spirometries during 13.5 years of follow-up. Lung volumes, FEV1 quotient (Q) and Global Lung Initiative (GLI)-2012 and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III z-scores were presented from 6932 spirometries. Adjusted absolute change per year (95% CI) was −51.7 (−63.7–−39.9) mL for FEV1 and −56.2 (−73.6–−38.8) mL for FVC. Adjusted relative change per year was −2.97 (−3.53–−2.40)% for FEV1 and −2.46 (−3.07–−1.85)% for FVC. Risk factors for increased relative FVC and FEV1 decline were female sex, higher age, current smoking habits, elevated CRP (nonsignificant for FEV1, p=0.057) and low educational level. For increased absolute decline the risk factors were male sex and being a current smoker for FEV1 and low education for FVC. Relative but not absolute change correlated significantly with clinically relevant markers of functional status and may be superior to absolute change in risk factor analysis. Cross-sectional reduction in terms of FEV1Q was ∼1 unit per 10 years for both sexes. Proportions of subjects with results below lower limit of normal using NHANES III were close to anticipated, but were two to four times higher than expected using GLI-2012.

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 · 10.1183/13993003.01812-2017

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the three active treatment arms, deupirfenidone 825 mg TID demonstrated the largest treatment effect compared with placebo, slowing FVC decline over 26 weeks to a level approaching the normal physiological loss of FVC with aging.

    “Of the three active treatment arms, deupirfenidone 825 mg TID demonstrated the largest treatment effect compared with placebo, slowing FVC decline over 26 weeks to a level approaching the normal physiological loss of FVC with aging.14”

    From Deupirfenidone Compared with Pirfenidone and Placebo in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (ELEVATE-IPF): a Phase 2b Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Results (FEV1 and FVC change) report an adjusted FVC decline of 56.2 mL per year in a general population aged 60–102, providing a benchmark for age-related loss. The paper does not study deupirfenidone, compare treatment arms with placebo, or establish that a 26-week treatment effect approaches that benchmark. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 47

Authors
Luoto, J., Pihlsgård, M., Wollmer, P., & Elmståhl, S.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2018-12-21
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
1701812
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2906027248
Cited by
47
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Research Council (2017-01613, 521-2013-8604)
  • Skåne County
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
lung function decline, older adults, FEV1, forced vital capacity, smoking, C-reactive protein, educational attainment, sex differences, functional status, spirometry
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, Humans, Lung, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Reference Values, Social Class, Spirometry, United States, Vital Capacity, Logistic Models

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