Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31137798›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2019

Faecal Scent as a Novel Non-Invasive Biomarker to Discriminate between Coeliac Disease and Refractory Coeliac Disease: A Proof of Principle Study.

Maxine D Rouvroye, Alfian Wicaksono, Sofie Bosch, Edo Savelkoul, James A Covington, Hanneke Beaumont, Chris J Mulder, Gerd Bouma, Tim G J de Meij, Nanne K H de Boer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Refractory Celiac Disease.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maxine D RouvroyeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.rouvroye@vumc.nl.
Alfian WicaksonoSchool of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. A.Wicaksono@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0425-1678
Sofie BoschDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.bosch1@vumc.nl.
Edo SavelkoulDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. edosavelkoul@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9459-1400
James A CovingtonSchool of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. J.A.Covington@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1307-6488
Hanneke BeaumontDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.beaumont@vumc.nl.
Chris J MulderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. cjmulder@vumc.nl.
Gerd BoumaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.bouma@vumc.nl.
Tim G J de MeijDepartment of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.demeij@amsterdamumc.nl.
Nanne K H de BoerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, AG&M research institute, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. khn.deboer@vumc.nl.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the gold standard for diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD) is based on serology and gastroduodenoscopy with histology of duodenal mucosal biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of faecal volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis as a novel, non-invasive tool to discriminate between CD in remission in patients on a gluten-free diet (GFD), refractory coeliac disease (RCD) and controls without CD. Patients with an established diagnosis of CD on a GFD, RCD and healthy controls (HC) were instructed to collect a faecal sample. All subjects completed questionnaires on clinical symptoms, lifestyle and dietary information. Faecal VOCs were measured using gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry. A total of 13 CD, 7 RCD and 10 HC were included. A significant difference in VOC profiles between CD and RCD patients (area under the curve (AUC) ± 95% CI: 0.91 (0.79-1)

Indexed as

Electronic NoseAdultAgedBiosensing TechniquesCeliac DiseaseDiagnosis, DifferentialFecesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdorantsVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compoundsbiomarkerceliac diseaseelectronic nosenon-invasive diagnosticsrefractory celiac diseasevolatile organic compounds

Identifiers

PMID31137798
PMCPMC6627397
OpenAlexW2947028235

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.