NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background/Objectives: This systematic review aimed to synthesize current evidence on the use of impulse oscillometry (IOS) in assessing pulmonary function in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). IOS, as an effort-independent method, may offer advantages over conventional spirometry in detecting early or subclinical respiratory impairment in neurologically compromised populations. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar for observational studies published up to March 2025. The included studies involved patients diagnosed with PD who underwent respiratory assessment using IOS, either alone or in combination with spirometry. Data on IOS parameters (R5, R20, X5, AX) and their associations with disease severity, spirometric values or autonomic markers were extracted and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Four studies, published between 2020 and 2023, met the inclusion criteria. IOS revealed increased airway resistance in early-stage PD and inverse correlations with spirometric indices such as FEV1 and PEF. One study demonstrated significant correlations between IOS parameters and parasympathetic heart rate variable indices, suggesting autonomic involvement. IOS also showed stability across dopaminergic treatment states, highlighting its reliability in longitudinal monitoring. Conclusions: IOS appears to be a promising adjunct to traditional respiratory assessment in PD, capable of identifying subtle mechanical and autonomic dysfunctions. Despite encouraging results, the current evidence remains limited and further large-scale, longitudinal studies are needed to validate its clinical utility.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.