ArticleAllergy, asthma & immunology research2015
Fractional exhaled nitric oxide: comparison between portable devices and correlation with sputum eosinophils.
Article in Allergy, asthma & immunology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of usability and user-friendliness of three FeNO analyzers in a general population cohort of the LEAD study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Performance of two portable exhaled nitric oxide fraction devices compared to a "gold standard" chemiluminescence device.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Evolution of Airway Inflammation in Preschoolers with Asthma-Results of a Two-Year Longitudinal Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Characteristics of Adult Severe Refractory Asthma in Korea Analyzed From the Severe Asthma Registry.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2019Article
- [FEOpen respiratory archivesReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was performed to compare the 2 different portable devices measuring fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and to see the correlation between FeNO and induced sputum eosinophil count (ISE). Forty consecutive subjects clinically suspected to have asthma underwent FeNO measurement by NIOX-MINO® and NObreath® concurrently. All also had induced sputum analysis, methacholine provocation test or bronchodilator response test, and spin prick test. Agreement between the 2 devices was evaluated. The correlation between FeNO and ISE was assessed, as well as the cut-off level of FeNO to identify ISE ≥3%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between FeNO levels measured by NIOX-MINO® (FeNO(NIOX-MINO)) and NObreath® (FeNO(NObreath)) was 0.972 with 95% confidence interval of 0.948-0.985. The 95% limits of agreement were -28.9 to 19.9 ppb. The correlation coefficient between ISE and FeNO(NIOX-MINO) was 0.733 (P<0.001), and 0.751 between ISE and FeNO(NObreath) (P<0.001). The ROC curve found that the FeNO(NIOXMINO) of 37.5 ppb and the FeNO(NObreath) of 36.5 ppb identified ISE ≥3% with 90% sensitivity and 81% specificity. Age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, atopy, and the presence of asthma did not affect the FeNO level and its correlation with ISE. The NIOX-MINO ® and NObreath® agree with each other to a high degree. Both devices showed close correlation with ISE with similar cut-off value in identifying ISE ≥3%.
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.