Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a new technique for medical research. It is interesting to know how to publish a high quality paper after clinical trial by the criteria of EBM. This paper presents our experience on clinical trials as well as publishing EBM papers, including the aim of research, the design of study methods, the selection and application of statistical methods, the analysis of study results, feedback to the reviewer’s comments, and other technology related to the submitted manuscript, in order to improve the skill of publishing EBM study in our country.
Respiratory oscillometry is a lung function test that measures the mechanical properties of respiratory system by the forced oscillation technique. Oscillometry can be used in those who cannot perform traditional lung function tests, including young children. It is also an important tool to assess small airways function in clinical and research fields. In 2020, the European Respiratory Society published a new technical standard for respiratory oscillometry, which offered updated technical recommendations on the hardware, software, testing protocols and quality control of oscillometry measurements. This paper interpreted the new technical standard, for providing technical suggestions regarding oscillometry measurements in clinical and research settings, and as a reference for developing technical statements and recommendations for oscillometry in China.
In 2005, interpretative strategies for pulmonary function tests were issued jointly by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and they have since been updated in 2021. In this article, we introduced the updated key points, including reference equations and normal limits, natural changes in lung function over time, bronchodilator responsiveness testing, the classification of physiological impairments, and the severity of lung function impairment. We also put forward some suggestions from the viewpoint of our national conditions. We expected it to provide useful references for those concerned with the application of pulmonary function tests in China.
In 1994, a statement on the performance of lung function testing was issued by the Association for Respiratory Technology & Physiology (ARTP), and it has been updated in 2020. In this paper, we introduced the updated content, including general procedures, normal value ranges and interpretations of obstructive ventilation dysfunction, precautions of lung function tests, and paediatric lung function testing. We also compared the differences between the ARTP statement and the lung function guidelines issued by the Chinese Thoracic Society (CTS) and put forward some appropriate suggestions from the viewpoint of our current situation. We expected it to provide valuable references for the normative update and application of pulmonary function tests in China.
Objective To evaluate the impacts of pulmonary rehabilitation at different levels of exercise intensity on health status of patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods Thirty-two COPD patients treated with pulmonary rehabilitation by ergometry exercise were randomly assigned to exercise intensity level either by anaerobic threshold （AT group; n=15） or by maximum tolerate [high intensity group（HI group）; n=17]. Nine COPD patients without exercise training served as control. Bicycle exercise training was conducted in two separate days each week for 12 weeks. Spirometry，cardiopulmonary exercise testing，the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire （SGRQ） were accessed before and after the rehabilitation program. Results Exercise intensity （%Wmax） was significantly higher in HI group than AT group （69%±14% vs 52%±7%，Plt;0.01）. Significant improvement of SGRQ scores after rehabilitation were found both in AT group （－11.91±15.48 U） and HI group （－8.39±9.49 U）. However，no significant difference was found between the two groups in the degree of improvement （Z=－0.540，P=0.589）. Symptoms and impacts subscale scores of SGRQ were decreased significantly in HI group，but only symptoms scores decreased significantly in AT group. The control group did not show any significant improvement in SGRQ scores. No statistically significant correlation was found between improvement of peak oxygen consumption per predicted (VO2peak%pre) and SGRQ scores. Conclusion Both pulmonary rehabilitation strategies by anaerobic threshold and by maximum tolerate can improve health status of COPD patients significantly with no significant difference between each other.
Objective To evaluate the clinical value and safety of adenosine monophosphate( AMP)bronchoprovocation test in patients with asthma. Methods Sixty asthmatics, including 19 cases with uncontrolled asthma, 22 with partially controlled asthma, and 19 with controlled asthma were enrolled. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were enrolled as control and 20 patients with upper respiratory tract infection ( URI) were also included. AMP bronchoprovocation test ( AMP-BPT) was performed. PD20 FEV1-AMP lt;40 mg was set as a cut-off value of positive response to AMP. Positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and adverse reactions of AMP-BPT were evaluated. Eleven cases with uncontrolled asthma and 12 cases with partially controlled asthma were followed up with AMP-BPT three months and six months after inhaledcorticosteroids treatment. Asthma symptom scores were recorded a week early before each challenge. The correlation between PD20FEV1 -AMP and asthma symptom score was analyzed. Values of PD20 FEV1 -AMP were represented as median and quartile range [ M( QR) ] . Results No positive responses to AMP were found in both healthy and URI subjects. On the other hand, positive responses to AMP were found in all the uncontrolled asthmatics ( 100% ) with PD20FEV1 -AMP as 0. 6 mg ( 0. 4 mg) , in 19 partially controlled asthmatics ( 86. 4% ) with PD20 FEV1 -AMP as 5. 38 mg ( 32. 67 mg ) , and in 5 controlled asthmatics( 26. 3% ) with PD20FEV1 -AMP as 40 mg ( 29. 3 mg) . There were negative correlations between the logarithms of PD20 FEV1 -AMP and logarithms of asthma symptom scores ( r = - 0. 598, P lt; 0. 01) . The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was 72% , 100%, and 84% , respectively. Percentage of subjects who experienced wheezing, cough, dyspnea, swallows stimulation, chest tightness, expectoration and cyanosis during AMP-BPT were 37. 5%, 21. 2%, 15. 4%,7. 7%, 7. 7%, 4. 8%, and 1. 0%, respectively. No severe adverse reaction was found. Conclusions AMP-BPT is helpful to the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of bronchial asthma. It also can be used to evaluate the severity and control level, and to monitor the therapeutic efficacy in clinical practice. Moreover, AMP-BPT is well tolerated with little adverse reaction.
ObjectiveTo determine the ability of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to distinguish chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) from chronic thromboembolic disease (CTED). MethodsFifty patients diagnosed with CTED and fifty-eight patients with CTEPH in the the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from April 2019 to February 2022 were retrospectively included. The basic characteristics including age, gender, body mass index, symptom duration, and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NTpro-BNP), parameters of arterial blood gas analysis, right heart catheterization, echocardiography, pulmonary function, and CPET were all compared between patients with CTED and those with CTEPH. ResultsPatients with CTEPH displayed longer symptom duration, increased NTpro-BNP, decreased arterial partial pressure of oxygen, larger right atrial and ventricular diameters, and impaired worse resting pulmonary diffusing function compared with those with CTED (P<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the resting pulmonary ventilation function between the two groups (P>0.05). Among the CPET parameters of the CTEPH group, peak exercise oxygen uptake per kilogram, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold, oxygen pulse, oxygen uptake efficiency slope and oxygen saturation were all decreased, while the minute ventilation-carbon dioxide production at anaerobic threshold (VE/VCO2@AT) and VE/VCO2 slope were increased (P<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in heart rate reserve and breathing reserve (P>0.05). Furthermore, VE/VCO2@AT showed high accuracy for distinguishing CTEPH from CTED (sensitivity, 0.825; specificity, 0.860; and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.897). ConclusionsPatients with CTEPH showed more significant decreased exercise endurance, diffusion dysfunction, and hypoxemia during exercise and insufficient increase in cardiac output compared with CTED patients. Therefore, it is feasible to apply CPET as a new objective examination to distinguish CTED from CTEPH.
ObjectiveTo investigate the static pulmonary function and cardiopulmonary exercise function of convalescent patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge.MethodsPulmonary function and cardiopulmonary exercise capacity of COVID-19 patients who admitted to our hospital from January to March 2020 were analyzed. The patients were divided into a non-critical group (3 cases of moderate illness, 2 cases of severe illness) and a critical group (5 cases of critical illness). Five of the 10 patients completed spirometry on day 14 after discharge. All patients performed spirometry, diffusion capacity and cardiopulmonary exercise test around 28 days post-discharge. Ten healthy subjects were used as a control group.ResultsForced expiratory volume in one second of percent predicted (FEV1%pred), forced vital capacity of percent predicted (FVC%pred), the FEV1/FVC ratio (FEV1/FVC), peak expiratory flow of percent predicted (PEF%pred) and mean forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of percent predicted (FEF25%-75%%pred) of COVID-19 group were all within normal ranges, and there were no significant difference between COVID-19 group and the healthy group (P>0.05). Diffusion capacity (the carbon monoxide diffusion capacity of percent predicted, DLCO%pred) decreased in 3 patients. The peak oxygen uptake of percent predicted (PeakVO2%pred), oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), Oxygen pulse of percent predicted (VO2/HR%pred) in COVID-19 group decreased and were statistically significantly lower than the control group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in ventilatory equivalents for carbon dioxide at anaerobic threshold (VE/VCO2@AT) and the slope of ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2 slope) between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared to the non-critical group, the critical group displayed significantly lower FVC%pred and VO2/HR%pred (P<0.05). A decrease in PeakVO2%pred was observed in critical group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05). The FVC%pred and PEF%pred were significantly improved in 5 COVID-19 convalescents on Day 28 after discharge when comparing with day 14 (P<0.05).ConclusionsIn the first month after discharge, recovered COVID-19 patients mainly presented decreased exercise endurance in cardiopulmonary function tests.There are also some survivors with reduced diffusion function, but the impaired lung function of COVID-19 patients might return over time.