Skip to content

Pulmonary Function Test Study - Automated Interpretation

Pulmonary Function Test Study - Automated Interpretation

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03264417
Enrollment
50
Registered
2017-08-29
Start date
2017-08-01
Completion date
2018-04-01
Last updated
2018-09-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Respiratory Disease

Brief summary

A multicentric study to explore variability when clinicians are intrepreting lung function tests. Comparison with results of in-house built software for automatic interpretation.

Detailed description

This is a multi-center non-interventional retrospective study that will use data obtained from clinical routine. In the hospital, subjects with or without respiratory complaints undergo subset of (or complete) pulmonary function tests if clinically indicated. Results of these tests, expressed as numerical values are send to the clinical workstation (KWS) for immediate clinical use. These results are subsequently being interpreted by a clinician. A random sample of 50 lung function printouts of subjects followed at the Leuven pulmonary service with a final diagnosis of a respiratory disease have been randomised. These anonymized printouts will be given to different pulmonologists for examination in 18 different centers and compared with the interpretation of in-house developed software.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

University Hospital, Ghent
CollaboratorOTHER
AZ Sint-Jan AV
CollaboratorOTHER
Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg
CollaboratorOTHER
Jessa Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Aalst
CollaboratorOTHER
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital St Luc, Brussels
CollaboratorOTHER
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Liege
CollaboratorOTHER
Centre Hospitalier du Luxembourg
CollaboratorOTHER
Maastricht University Medical Center
CollaboratorOTHER
University Medical Center Nijmegen
CollaboratorOTHER
University Medical Center Groningen
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital, Paris
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital, Grenoble
CollaboratorOTHER
Philipps University Marburg
CollaboratorOTHER
KU Leuven
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Age more than 18 years 2. Completed one or more pulmonary function tests

Exclusion criteria

1. Younger than 18 2. Lung transplantation, lung cancer.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Interclass correlation coëfficiënt for whole group6 monthsVariation in preferred primary diagnosis of respiratory disease given by every physician for every case (selection of one diagnosis out of a fixed panel of 9 possible diagnoses).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Accuracy of physicians expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses per case (%)6 monthsComparison of diagnostic labels per case provided by the physicians with gold standard diagnosis based on clinical characteristics, complete pulmonary function test data and all other investigations (CT scan, biochmestry, functional test, biopsy, etc...) needed to come to a gold standard diagnosis.
Accuracy of physicans expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses in total group (%)6 monthsComparison of diagnostic labels per case provided by the physicians with gold standard diagnosis based on clinical characteristics, complete pulmonary function test data and all other investigations (CT scan, biochmestry, functional test, biopsy, etc...) needed to come to a gold standard diagnosis.
Interclass correlation coëfficiënt for every case6 monthsVariation in preferred primary diagnosis of respiratory disease given by every physician for an individual case (selection of one diagnosis out of a fixed panel of 9 possible diagnoses).
Accuracy of software expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses in total group, per hospital and per case6 monthsComparing labels of in-house developed software for the clinical interpretation and diagnostic labeling of complete pulmonary function tests with GOLD standard based on all additional tests
Comparison of accuracy (% of correct diagnoses) of physicians with software6 monthsComparing the diagnostic labels provided by in-house developed software for the clinical interpretation and diagnostic labeling of complete pulmonary function tests with those of physicans (in total group, per hospital and per case)
Accuracy of physicians expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses per hospital (group) (%)6 monthsComparison of diagnostic labels per case provided by the group of physicians per hospital with gold standard diagnosis based on clinical characteristics, complete pulmonary function test data and all other investigations (CT scan, biochmestry, functional test, biopsy, etc...) needed to come to a gold standard diagnosis.

Countries

Belgium

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026