ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Diagnostic accuracy of exhaled nitric oxide in asthma: a meta-analysis of 4,691 participants.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Pooled it
- What is the added value of FeNO as T2 biomarker?Frontiers in allergy · 2022Review
- Towards a practical clinical use of fractioned exhaled nitric oxide levels in chronic cough.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asthma is a common airway inflammation, but current methods for diagnosing it are poor. Here we meta-analyze the available evidence on the ability of exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) in asthma to serve as a diagnostic marker of asthma. We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases, published data on sensitivity, specificity and other measures of diagnostic accuracy of eNO in the diagnosis of asthma were meta-analyzed. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by QUADAS-2 (quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy). Statistical analysis was performed by employing Meta-Disc 1.4 software and STATA. And the measures of accuracy of eNO in the diagnosis of asthma were pooled using random-effects models. A total of nineteen publications reporting twenty-one case-control studies were identified. Pooled results indicated that eNO showed a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.80), specificity was 0.74 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.76). PLR was 3.70 (95% CI 2.84 to 4.81) and NLR was 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.47). DOR was 11.37 (95% CI 7.54 to 17.13). Exhaled nitric oxide show insufficient sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing asthma, eNO measurements may be useful in combination with clinical manifestations and conventional tests such as pulmonary function tests, assessment of bronchodilator response and bronchial challenge tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26309503PMC4538098W1596224231What 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.