Routine use of post-bronchodilator testing in pulmonary function testing labs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Pulmonary function tests (PFTs), including spirometry with and without post-bronchodilator (post-BD) testing, are frequently performed in the assessment of asthma, along with other obstructive airway disorders. Multiple publications over the past 15 years have noted that one in three physician-diagnosed asthma cases are not in fact asthma. In this quality assurance project, we assess whether PFT labs in Alberta have policies on post-BD testing, as extraneous and unnecessary use of post-BD testing can lead to wasted staff and patient time and unnecessary expenses to the health care system. Methods We reviewed, in collaboration with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and Alberta Medical Association, all PFT labs in the province of Alberta (hospital-based private not-for-profit [NFP] and private for-profit [FP] labs). This health policy study of PFT labs involved identifying the proportions and regional distribution of NFP and private FP labs in the province of Alberta while assessing post-BD policies. Each PFT lab was asked for their policy regarding spirometry and asthma diagnosis from May 1 to August 31, 2017. Results A total of 92 PFT labs were identified in Alberta, 74 of which were private FP (independent) labs, while 18 were private NFP (public) hospital-based labs. Policies were as follows: (i) post-BD policy existed (and if so routinely performed / not routinely done); (ii) no post-BD policy; and (iii) lab chose not to participate. All 18 hospital labs responded: 10 had no policy; six had a policy or algorithm; one did not perform post-BD testing (exercise testing) and one had multiple testing sites. Of the private FP labs, three had relevant policies and/or algorithm and 10 had none. No information was provided from 61 labs. Access to PFT labs in Northern Alberta was limited. Conclusions Lab policies surrounding post-BD testing were found to be heterogeneous in Alberta. Low response rates, despite the use of a systems approach and requests in writing and in person from FP labs, were notable. Development of a standardized policy across the province would be beneficial. Further higher-level review of the appropriateness of post-BD use in both FP and NFP PFT labs is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".