肺活量的位置变化作为鉴别横膈膜功能障碍的工具:一项定性的系统回顾

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Hendrik Kever , Giuseppe Liistro , Dominique Butenda Babapu , Gregory Reychler
{"title":"肺活量的位置变化作为鉴别横膈膜功能障碍的工具:一项定性的系统回顾","authors":"Hendrik Kever ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Liistro ,&nbsp;Dominique Butenda Babapu ,&nbsp;Gregory Reychler","doi":"10.1016/j.resmer.2025.101162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Sitting to supine fall in vital capacity (∆VC) is commonly used to screen for diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD), but the predictive threshold value varies.</div><div>This systematic review aimed to compare the position-dependent change in vital capacity (VC) in patients with objectively confirmed DD.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>What is the optimal predictive value of ∆VC to diagnose DD.</div></div><div><h3>Study design and methods</h3><div>We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase and Scopus, including backward citations, for studies from database inception to December 5, 2023. Included trials measured position change in VC in adult patients with DD, confirmed independently by a parameter other than ∆VC. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 497 records identified, 10 studies were included, totalling 393 adults, of which 284 had DD. In patients with confirmed unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, mean change in VC ranged from 7 to 23%, and in those with bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, from 19 to 37%. In studies providing only values for DD without specifying unilateral or bilateral involvement, it ranged from 31 to 42%. In control groups, it ranged from 3 to 9%.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>The change in VC appears to be a valid test for confirming DD when using a cut-off value of 20%, though this approach results in very low sensitivity.</div><div>A cut-off value of 15% should be used in a screening setting as an initial approach of a multimodal strategy, without being sensible enough to exclude milder forms of DD.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48479,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 101162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The positional change in vital capacity as a tool to identify diaphragm dysfunction: A qualitative systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Hendrik Kever ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Liistro ,&nbsp;Dominique Butenda Babapu ,&nbsp;Gregory Reychler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resmer.2025.101162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Sitting to supine fall in vital capacity (∆VC) is commonly used to screen for diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD), but the predictive threshold value varies.</div><div>This systematic review aimed to compare the position-dependent change in vital capacity (VC) in patients with objectively confirmed DD.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>What is the optimal predictive value of ∆VC to diagnose DD.</div></div><div><h3>Study design and methods</h3><div>We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase and Scopus, including backward citations, for studies from database inception to December 5, 2023. Included trials measured position change in VC in adult patients with DD, confirmed independently by a parameter other than ∆VC. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 497 records identified, 10 studies were included, totalling 393 adults, of which 284 had DD. In patients with confirmed unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, mean change in VC ranged from 7 to 23%, and in those with bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, from 19 to 37%. In studies providing only values for DD without specifying unilateral or bilateral involvement, it ranged from 31 to 42%. In control groups, it ranged from 3 to 9%.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>The change in VC appears to be a valid test for confirming DD when using a cut-off value of 20%, though this approach results in very low sensitivity.</div><div>A cut-off value of 15% should be used in a screening setting as an initial approach of a multimodal strategy, without being sensible enough to exclude milder forms of DD.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory Medicine and Research\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory Medicine and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590041225000091\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590041225000091","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

坐至仰卧的肺活量下降(∆VC)通常用于筛查膈功能障碍(DD),但预测阈值各不相同。本系统综述旨在比较客观确诊的dd患者体位依赖性肺活量(VC)变化。研究问题∆VC诊断dd的最佳预测价值是什么?研究设计和方法我们检索了Medline/PubMed、Embase和Scopus,包括反向引用,检索了从数据库建立到2023年12月5日的研究。纳入的试验测量了成年DD患者的VC位置变化,由∆VC以外的参数独立证实。使用Downs和Black检查表评估偏倚风险。结果在497项记录中,纳入了10项研究,共393名成年人,其中284名患有DD。在确诊的单侧膈肌麻痹患者中,VC的平均变化范围为7%至23%,在双侧膈肌麻痹患者中,VC的平均变化范围为19%至37%。在仅提供DD值而未指定单侧或双侧受累的研究中,其范围为31%至42%。在对照组中,这一比例从3%到9%不等。当使用截断值20%时,VC的变化似乎是确认DD的有效测试,尽管这种方法导致非常低的灵敏度。作为多模式策略的初始方法,在筛查设置中应使用15%的临界值,但不能合理到足以排除较轻形式的DD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The positional change in vital capacity as a tool to identify diaphragm dysfunction: A qualitative systematic review

Background

Sitting to supine fall in vital capacity (∆VC) is commonly used to screen for diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD), but the predictive threshold value varies.
This systematic review aimed to compare the position-dependent change in vital capacity (VC) in patients with objectively confirmed DD.

Research question

What is the optimal predictive value of ∆VC to diagnose DD.

Study design and methods

We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase and Scopus, including backward citations, for studies from database inception to December 5, 2023. Included trials measured position change in VC in adult patients with DD, confirmed independently by a parameter other than ∆VC. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.

Results

Of 497 records identified, 10 studies were included, totalling 393 adults, of which 284 had DD. In patients with confirmed unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, mean change in VC ranged from 7 to 23%, and in those with bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, from 19 to 37%. In studies providing only values for DD without specifying unilateral or bilateral involvement, it ranged from 31 to 42%. In control groups, it ranged from 3 to 9%.

Interpretation

The change in VC appears to be a valid test for confirming DD when using a cut-off value of 20%, though this approach results in very low sensitivity.
A cut-off value of 15% should be used in a screening setting as an initial approach of a multimodal strategy, without being sensible enough to exclude milder forms of DD.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory Medicine and Research
Respiratory Medicine and Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
50 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信