ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2014
Intestinal current measurement versus nasal potential difference measurements for diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: a case-control study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organoid Technology and Its Role for Theratyping Applications in Cystic Fibrosis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Potential of Intestinal Current Measurement for Personalized Treatment of Patients with Cystic Fibrosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Serum Adenosine Deaminase in Cystic Fibrosis Patients in an Iranian Referral Hospital.Iranian journal of pediatrics · 2016Article
- CFTR: A New Horizon in the Pathomechanism and Treatment of Pancreatitis.Reviews of physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal potential difference (NPD) and intestinal current measurement (ICM) are functional CFTR tests that are used as adjunctive diagnostic tools for cystic fibrosis (CF). Smoking has a systemic negative impact on CFTR function. A diagnostic comparison between NPD and ICM and the impact of smoking on both CFTR tests has not been done.
methodsThe sweat chloride test, NPD, and ICM were performed in 18 patients with CF (sweat chloride >60 mmol/l), including 6 pancreatic sufficient (PS) patients, and 13 healthy controls, including 8 smokers. The NPD CFTR response to Cl-free and isoproterenol perfusion (Δ0Cl- + Iso) was compared to the ICM CFTR response to forskolin/IBMX, carbachol, and histamine (ΔIsc, forskolin/IBMX+ carbachol+histamine).
resultsThe mean NPD CFTR response and ICM CFTR response between patients with CF and healthy controls was significantly different (p <0.001), but not between patients with CF who were PS and those who were pancreatic insufficient (PI). Smokers have a decreased CFTR response measured by NPD (p = 0.049). For ICM there is a trend towards decreased CFTR response (NS). Three healthy control smokers had NPD responses within the CF-range. In contrast to NPD, there was no overlap of the ICM response between patients with CF and controls.
conclusionsICM is superior to NPD in distinguishing between patients with CF who have a sweat chloride > 60 mmol/l and healthy controls, including smokers. Neither NPD nor ICM differentiated between patients with CF who were PS from those who were PI. Smoking has a negative impact on CFTR function in healthy controls measured by NPD and challenges the diagnostic interpretation of NPD, but not ICM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.