Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25515007›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2014

Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment.

Umberto Moscato, Andrea Poscia, Riccardo Gargaruti, Giovanni Capelli, Franco Cavaliere

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. 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 · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Umberto MoscatoInstitute of Public Health, Hygiene Division, Catholic University "Sacro Cuore", Largo Francesco Vito, 1, 00168 Rome, Italy. umoscato@rm.unicatt.it.
Andrea Poscia
Riccardo Gargaruti
Giovanni Capelli
Franco Cavaliere
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITCatholic University of America · USUniversità degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultBreath TestsCarbon MonoxideElectrochemical TechniquesFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePhotoacoustic TechniquesReference ValuesSmokingYoung AdultCarbon Monoxide

Identifiers

PMID25515007
PMCPMC4275957
OpenAlexW1823840070

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.