Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22087323›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Comparison of two devices and two breathing patterns for exhaled breath condensate sampling.

Eva-Maria Hüttmann, Timm Greulich, Akira Hattesohl, Severin Schmid, Sarah Noeske, Christian Herr, Gerrit John, Rudolf A Jörres, Bernd Müller, Claus Vogelmeier and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Eva-Maria HüttmannDivision for Pulmonary Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Timm Greulich
Akira Hattesohl
Severin Schmid
Sarah Noeske
Christian Herr
Gerrit John
Rudolf A Jörres
Bernd Müller
Claus Vogelmeier
Andreas Rembert Koczulla

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAnalysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a noninvasive method to access the epithelial lining fluid of the lungs. Due to standardization problems the method has not entered clinical practice. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability for two commercially available devices in healthy controls. In addition, we assessed different breathing patterns in healthy controls with protein markers to analyze the source of the EBC.

methodsEBC was collected from ten subjects using the RTube and ECoScreen Turbo in a randomized crossover design, twice with every device--once in tidal breathing and once in hyperventilation. EBC conductivity, pH, surfactant protein A, Clara cell secretory protein and total protein were assessed. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to display the influence of different devices or breathing patterns and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The volatile organic compound profile was measured using the electronic nose Cyranose 320. For the analysis of these data, the linear discriminant analysis, the Mahalanobis distances and the cross-validation values (CVV) were calculated.

resultsNeither the device nor the breathing pattern significantly altered EBC pH or conductivity. ICCs ranged from 0.61 to 0.92 demonstrating moderate to very good agreement. Protein measurements were greatly influenced by breathing pattern, the device used, and the way in which the results were reported. The electronic nose could distinguish between different breathing patterns and devices, resulting in Mahalanobis distances greater than 2 and CVVs ranging from 64% to 87%.

conclusionEBC pH and (to a lesser extent) EBC conductivity are stable parameters that are not influenced by either the device or the breathing patterns. Protein measurements remain uncertain due to problems of standardization. We conclude that the influence of the breathing maneuver translates into the necessity to keep the volume of ventilated air constant in further studies.

Indexed as

AdultBreath TestsElectric ConductivityHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMethodsProteinsReference StandardsRespirationYoung AdultProteins

Identifiers

PMID22087323
PMCPMC3210176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.