Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24957037›Full record

ArticleMetabolites2014

Breath analysis in disease diagnosis: methodological considerations and applications.

Célia Lourenço, Claire Turner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolites, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 308 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Systematic comparison of methods for offline breath sampling.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Célia LourençoDepartment of Life, Health & Chemical Sciences, Chemistry and Analytical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. celia.lourenco@open.ac.uk.
Claire TurnerDepartment of Life, Health & Chemical Sciences, Chemistry and Analytical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. claire.turner@open.ac.uk.
The Open University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breath analysis is a promising field with great potential for non-invasive diagnosis of a number of disease states. Analysis of the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath with an acceptable accuracy are assessed by means of using analytical techniques with high sensitivity, accuracy, precision, low response time, and low detection limit, which are desirable characteristics for the detection of VOCs in human breath. "Breath fingerprinting", indicative of a specific clinical status, relies on the use of multivariate statistics methods with powerful in-built algorithms. The need for standardisation of sample collection and analysis is the main issue concerning breath analysis, blocking the introduction of breath tests into clinical practice. This review describes recent scientific developments in basic research and clinical applications, namely issues concerning sampling and biochemistry, highlighting the diagnostic potential of breath analysis for disease diagnosis. Several considerations that need to be taken into account in breath analysis are documented here, including the growing need for metabolomics to deal with breath profiles.

Identifiers

PMID24957037
PMCPMC4101517
OpenAlexW2022622856

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.