ArticleJournal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society2017
A multiple reader scoring system for Nasal Potential Difference parameters.
Article in Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society, 2017. 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.
- The measurement properties of tests and tools used in cystic fibrosis studies: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Pooled it
- Research advances in molecular mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of cystic fibrosis: From technical improvement to clinical applications (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2020Review
- Standardized Measurement of Nasal Membrane Transepithelial Potential Difference (NPD).Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNasal Potential Difference (NPD) is a biomarker of CFTR activity used to diagnose CF and monitor experimental therapies. Limited studies have been performed to assess agreement between expert readers of NPD interpretation using a scoring algorithm.
methodsWe developed a standardized scoring algorithm for "interpretability" and "confidence" for PD (potential difference) measures, and sought to determine the degree of agreement on NPD parameters between trained readers.
resultsThere was excellent agreement for interpretability between NPD readers for CF and fair agreement for normal tracings but slight agreement of interpretability in indeterminate tracings. Amongst interpretable tracings, excellent correlation of mean scores for Ringer's Baseline PD, Δ
conclusionA multi-reader process with adjudication is important for scoring NPDs for diagnosis and in monitoring of CF clinical trials.
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.