↓ Skip to main content

Prediction equations of forced oscillation technique: the insidious role of collinearity

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Prediction equations of forced oscillation technique: the insidious role of collinearity
Published in
Respiratory Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-018-0745-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hassib Narchi, Afaf AlBlooshi

Abstract

Many studies have reported reference data for forced oscillation technique (FOT) in healthy children. The prediction equation of FOT parameters were derived from a multivariable regression model examining the effect of age, gender, weight and height on each parameter. As many of these variables are likely to be correlated, collinearity might have affected the accuracy of the model, potentially resulting in misleading, erroneous or difficult to interpret conclusions.The aim of this work was: To review all FOT publications in children since 2005 to analyze whether collinearity was considered in the construction of the published prediction equations. Then to compare these prediction equations with our own study. And to analyse, in our study, how collinearity between the explanatory variables might affect the predicted equations if it was not considered in the model. The results showed that none of the ten reviewed studies had stated whether collinearity was checked for. Half of the reports had also included in their equations variables which are physiologically correlated, such as age, weight and height. The predicted resistance varied by up to 28% amongst these studies. And in our study, multicollinearity was identified between the explanatory variables initially considered for the regression model (age, weight and height). Ignoring it would have resulted in inaccuracies in the coefficients of the equation, their signs (positive or negative), their 95% confidence intervals, their significance level and the model goodness of fit. In Conclusion with inaccurately constructed and improperly reported models, understanding the results and reproducing the models for future research might be compromised.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 24%
Engineering 2 12%
Psychology 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#2,216
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,481
of 344,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#49
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.