An observational study in Respiratory Disease, sponsored by KU Leuven. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-09-05.
Sponsored by KU Leuven · Observational
Among 21 studies in Respiration Disorders with a site in Belgium — none open to participants now, 2 under way, none of them phase 3. Respiration Disorders · Belgium.
Among the 21 studies in Respiration Disorders with a site in Belgium, this one is one of 4 that started in 2017, is one of 7 observational ones, and was the 11th registered.
359 studies on the registry are indexed under Respiration Disorders; 64 are open to participants now.
Browse Respiration Disorders studies →None of the 21 studies in Respiration Disorders with a site in Belgium is open now. The open studies under Respiration Disorders, anywhere →
Of the 45 Respiration Disorders studies recruiting now, 27 (60%) set no upper age limit and 13 (29%) stop at 75 or younger; 15 take children under 18; 21 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 18 Years and older · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
21 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
First in 2009; this study’s year is marked. 4 started in 2017.
This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 250 across 134 observational studies indexed under Respiration Disorders.
Median enrollment 72 across the 14 interventional studies, 100 across the 7 observational. Of the 14 that completed or were terminated, 5 (36%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
11 of 21 have an industry lead sponsor. The 10 most frequent:
KU Leuven is the lead sponsor of 373 studies on the registry; 65 are open to participants now.
KU Leuven has 3 studies filed under Respiration Disorders — fewer than ten, so there is no comparison to draw.
None of the studies under way reaches primary completion within a year.
Among the 21 studies in Respiration Disorders with a site in Belgium, from their registry updates:
Nothing recorded among them since 2026-09-25.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
A multicentric study to explore variability when clinicians are intrepreting lung function tests. Comparison with results of in-house built software for automatic interpretation.
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.
Subjects with or without respiratory complaints undergo subset of (or complete) pulmonary function tests
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Interclass correlation coëfficiënt for whole group
Variation 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).
Time frame: 6 months
Interclass correlation coëfficiënt for every case
Variation 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).
Time frame: 6 months
Accuracy of physicians expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses per case (%)
Comparison 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.
Time frame: 6 months
Accuracy of physicans expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses in total group (%)
Comparison 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.
Time frame: 6 months
Accuracy of physicians expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses per hospital (group) (%)
Comparison 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.
Time frame: 6 months
Accuracy of software expressed as a percentage of correct diagnoses in total group, per hospital and per case
Comparing 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
Time frame: 6 months
Comparison of accuracy (% of correct diagnoses) of physicians with software
Comparing 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)
Time frame: 6 months
Ran from Aug 2017 to primary completion in Dec 2017, 4 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.