An observational study in Respiratory Disease, sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre. Status unknown at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-02-09.
Sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre · 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 13th 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 · no healthy volunteers.
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 planned enrollment of 100 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:
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre is the lead sponsor of 78 studies on the registry; 12 are open to participants now.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre has 1 study 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.
Contribution of four pulmonary function tests to diagnosis in patients with respiratory symptoms in the primary care.
Background Pulmonary function tests are routinely used for the diagnosis of respiratory conditions. Few studies have been conducted, assessing the use of the pulmonary function tests and their contribution to the diagnosis in patients with respiratory symptoms. A recent study in 33 chest services from Belgian hospitals have shown that each of the four common pulmonary function tests (spirometry, lung volume, airway resistance and diffusing capacity) contributes significantly to the final diagnosis made by pulmonologists in new patients with respiratory symptoms.
Primary care physicians however treat the majority of patients with respiratory symptoms and often use a symptom-based approach to make a diagnosis (2). Diagnostic spirometry remains largely underused in primary care and is probably mainly performed in the care of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Drawbacks of home spirometry also include poorly performed tests and incorrect interpretation of the results (3). In addition, primary care physicians have no access to the three other common pulmonary function tests that contribute independently to the diagnosis of respiratory diseases (1).
Since 2015, our chest service localized in the center of Brussels offers a direct and open access to the lung function laboratory to all the patients referred by their general practitioners. The four common tests are performed in their patients with respiratory symptoms but no clear diagnosis and the patients are not evaluated by the chest physicians. A protocol is however performed with potential advice for additional diagnostic tests (provocation tests, exhaled NO measurement, ergospirometry, imaging,...).
In the present study, we will assess the contribution of the four common pulmonary function tests to diagnosis in patients with respiratory symptoms in the primary care.
Methods Prospective single center cohort study. Adult patients, aged more than 18 years, presenting to the general practitioner with respiratory symptoms but without a clear diagnosis and referred by them for pulmonary function tests will be enrolled in the study. Patients will be excluded if they had diagnosed respiratory disease at our institution and if they are not able to perform pulmonary function testing.
The patients will not be seen or examined by a pulmonologist of the chest service. They will return to the referring family physician for further treatment.
Before lung function testing, the patients will be asked to fill in a questionnaire, including short questions about their medical history and respiratory medications, previous referrals to a pulmonologist, symptoms and comorbidities.
All patients, regardless of the suspected respiratory condition, will also be asked to complete the COPD assessment test (CAT test) to better quantify their symptoms.
The tests (spirometry, plethysmography, airway resistance measurement, diffusion capacity measurement) will then be performed by a qualified lung function lab technician. Interpretation of the results will be made by a pulmonologist. The protocol will be given to the patient or sent to the referring family physician and may also include proposals for additional diagnostic tests.
In second time, one month later, the general practitioner will be contacted by one of the investigators to receive more information about the final diagnosis based on all the investigations done and treatment.
The collected data will be processed in a database and analyzed anonymously. The primary outcome will be the increase in the proportion of diagnosis afforded by the four tests in comparison with spirometry alone. Secondary outcomes will be the proportion of patients without clear diagnosis, time to lung function tests and time to diagnosis.
Statistical analysis The present study is mainly descriptive and no hypothesis can be made on the contribution of additional lung function tests to the final diagnosis in a population of patients from general practitioners. The present study will include 100 patients with respiratory symptoms but no clear diagnosis.
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:
adult patients of both sexes (\>18 and \<80 years) with no previous diagnosis or follow up by a pulmonologist, send by a general practitioner to the lung function lab
number of cases in which the four lung function tests are contributing to the final diagnosis
number of cases in which the four lung function tests are contributing to the final established diagnosis compared to spirometry alone
Time frame: at study completion
number of cases in which additional tests were performed
number of cases in which additional tests were needed to establish the correct final diagnosis, after the performance of the four lung function tests
Time frame: at study completion
changes in treatment after the four lung function tests
changes in treatment, prescribed by the primary physician, after the performance of the four lung function tests
Time frame: at study completion
Started Apr 2017 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2018, 15 months after the start.
Of 60 non-industry observational studies under Respiration Disorders, half reached primary completion within 32 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 14 and three quarters within 60. This study's planned 15 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 75 studies reached it within 26 months; a quarter within 10 and three quarters within 55.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Feb 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.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint Pierre