ArticleJournal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners2017
Measurement of exhaled breath carbon monoxide in clinical practice: A study of levels in Central Pennsylvania community members.
Article in Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Exhaled carbon monoxide concentration in correlation to clinical parameters to detect carbon monoxide poisoning among fire victims in an Egyptian Emergency Department.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- Article
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
Abstract
background and purposeExhaled breath carbon monoxide (eBCO) reading is a useful tool for nurse practitioners to evaluate smoking status and other exposures to carbon monoxide (CO) to identify risk for cancer and chronic disease. This study aimed to measure one community's eBCO and identify potential environmental factors that may affect eBCO among nonsmokers.
methodsData collected by convenience sampling at community health events included self-reported tobacco use and potential CO exposure. Means and frequency calculations describe the sample, two-sided t-tests determine differences in continuous variables, and chi-square tests determine differences in frequencies of CO levels between nontobacco users exposed to additional CO from their environment and nontobacco users who were not.
conclusionAs expected, smokers have significantly higher mean eBCO than nonsmokers (20.1 ppm vs. 4.4 ppm, p < .001). The self-reported nonsmokers (16.2%) had an elevated eBCO (>6 ppm), although there were no environmental factors that explained a higher eBCO. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Measuring eBCO provides an opportunity for the nurse practitioner to engage in a conversation about the impact of smoking and other environmental factors that contribute to eBCO and health. Keeping record of patients' smoking status and eBCO in their medical record is a valuable measure of the nurse practitioner's delivery of this care.
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.