ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2014
Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Intake on Eosinophil Airway Inflammation in University Athletes.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2022Article
- Nutritional status and quality of life in adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.International journal of hematology · 2022Observational
- Perceived Pain and Smoking Interrelations and Expectancies Are Associated With Pain and Smoking Cessation in Individuals With Mobility Impairments.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the MoMba Live Long Remote Smoking Detection System During and After Pregnancy: Development and Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Review
- Impact of Educational Interventions on Psychological Distress During Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Randomised Study.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Validating Use of Internet-Submitted Carbon Monoxide Values by Video to Determine Quit Status.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2017Article
- ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPIRED-AIR CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS.Journal of smoking cessation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a previous study, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) has been assessed in healthy non-smokers with a photo acoustic spectrometer Brüel&Kjær 1312. Unexpectedly, values were higher than those reported in literature, which were mostly obtained with electrochemical analysers. This study was aimed to compare eCO values obtained with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer, a largely utilized electrochemical analyser.
methodsThirty-four healthy subjects, 15 non-smokers and 19 smokers, underwent eCO assessment with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer during a prolonged expiration (15 seconds). Brüel&Kjær 1312 assessed CO concentration 7 and 12 seconds after the beginning of expiration and displayed the mean value. PiCO + Smokerlyzer was utilized according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In vitro, the two devices were tested with standard concentrations of CO in nitrogen (5, 9.9, 20, and 50 ppm), and the time needed by PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings to stabilize was assessed at different gas flows.
resultsBoth Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer presented very good internal consistency. The values provided were strictly correlated, but at low test concentrations, the Brüel&Kjær 1312 readings were greater than the PiCO + Smokerlyzer, and vice versa. PiCO + Smokerlyzer overestimated the CO standard concentrations at 5 and 9.9 ppm by 20%, while Brüel&Kjær 1312 measures were correct. PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings stabilized in 12 seconds during in vitro tests and in 15 seconds during in vivo measurements, suggesting that the values displayed corresponded to the initial phase of expiration.
conclusionsDifferences between Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer may be explained because Brüel&Kjær 1312 measured CO levels in the middle and at the end of expiration while PiCO + Smokerlyzer assessed them in the initial part of expiration.
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.