Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26982569›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Smelling the Diagnosis: The Electronic Nose as Diagnostic Tool in Inflammatory Arthritis. A Case-Reference Study.

Marjolein P Brekelmans, Niki Fens, Paul Brinkman, Lieuwe D Bos, Peter J Sterk, Paul P Tak, Daniëlle M Gerlag

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. A Novel Medical E-Nose Signal Analysis System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marjolein P BrekelmansDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Niki FensDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Paul BrinkmanDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lieuwe D BosDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter J SterkDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Paul P TakDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Daniëlle M GerlagDivision of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate whether exhaled breath analysis using an electronic nose can identify differences between inflammatory joint diseases and healthy controls.

methodsIn a cross-sectional study, the exhaled breath of 21 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 18 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with active disease was compared to 21 healthy controls using an electronic nose (Cyranose 320; Smiths Detection, Pasadena, CA, USA). Breathprints were analyzed with principal component analysis, discriminant analysis, and area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and relationships between breathprints and markers of disease activity were explored.

resultsBreathprints of RA patients could be distinguished from controls with an accuracy of 71% (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.90, sensitivity 76%, specificity 67%). Breathprints from PsA patients were separated from controls with 69% accuracy (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.92, sensitivity 72%, specificity 71%). Distinction between exhaled breath of RA and PsA patients exhibited an accuracy of 69% (AUC 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.89, sensitivity 71%, specificity 72%). There was a positive correlation in RA patients of exhaled breathprints with disease activity score (DAS28) and number of painful joints. GC-MS identified seven key VOCs that significantly differed between the groups.

conclusionsExhaled breath analysis by an electronic nose may play a role in differential diagnosis of inflammatory joint diseases. Data from this study warrant external validation.

Indexed as

Electronic NoseAdolescentAdultAgedArthritis, RheumatoidBreath TestsCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansMaleMiddle AgedVolatile Organic CompoundsYoung AdultVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID26982569
PMCPMC4794231
OpenAlexW2301020744

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.