ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2016
Repeatability and Diagnostic Value of Nasal Potential Difference in a Genetically Admixed Population.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward inclusive therapy with CFTR modulators: Progress and challenges.Pediatric pulmonology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe genetic diversity of the Brazilian population results from three ethnic groups admixture: Europeans, Africans and Amerindians, thus increasing the difficulty of performing cystic fibrosis (CF) diagnosis. The nasal potential difference (NPD) evaluates the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) activity. Despite being a useful CF diagnostic test and a biomarker of CFTR-modulator drugs, it is also highly operator dependent. Therefore, it may be difficult to get accurate results and to interpret them. Wilschanski and Sermet scores were proposed to address these issues. This study aimed to evaluate repeatability and diagnostic value of NPD parameters and Wilschanski and Sermet scores in a CF center in Rio de Janeiro.
methodsNPD was performed in 78 subjects. Maximal PD, amiloride response, total chloride response, and Wilschanski and Sermet scores were explored as means (confidence interval, CI). One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean differences and Scheffe test was used to pair-wise comparisons. Repeatability was evaluated by scatter and Bland-Altman plots. The Ethics Committee of the CF Center has approved the study protocol. Parents and adult participants signed an informed consent form.
resultsForty-eight healthy-volunteers, 19 non-CF and 11 CF patients were enrolled in this study. Significant differences were found when comparing CF patients' NPD parameters to the other two groups (P = 0.000). Moreover, no significant differences were found when parameters from non-CF patients were compared with those from healthy volunteers (P > 0.05). The means of NPD parameters and diagnostic scores of each group were in concordance with disease/non-disease conditions. The repeatability data - Wilschanski and Sermet and NPD - allow NPD to be performed in this Brazilian CF Center.
conclusionsThe present study gathered consistent data for Bland-Altman plots. The results of Wilschanski and Sermet diagnostic scores suggest that they were concordant with CF/non-CF conditions. More NPD tests should be performed in the Rio de Janeiro CF dynamic cohort to contribute to international NPD validation studies and to provide NPD as a biomarker in Brazil.
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.