ReviewBreathe (Sheffield, England)2019
The electronic nose: emerging biomarkers in lung cancer diagnostics.
Review in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Untargeted Sweat and Sebum Volatilomics by HS-SPME-GC/ToF-MS for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2-Associated Biomarkers.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Smart patches for healthcare industry: a review of emerging technologies, challenges, and developmental opportunities.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- The electronic nose in lung cancer diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- ERS International Congress 2022: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Review
- Review
- Effects of dexmedetomide, propofol and remifentanil on perioperative inflammatory response and lung function during lung cancer surgery.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is very common and the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Despite recent progress in the systemic treatment of lung cancer (checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors), each year, >1.5 million people die due to this disease. Most lung cancer patients already have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. Computed tomography screening of high-risk individuals can detect lung cancer at an earlier stage but at a cost of false-positive findings. Biomarkers could lead towards a reduction of these false-positive findings and earlier lung cancer diagnosis, and have the potential to improve outcomes and treatment monitoring. To date, there is a lack of such biomarkers for lung cancer and other thoracic malignancies, although electronic nose (e-nose)-derived biomarkers are of interest. E-nose techniques using exhaled breath component measurements can detect lung cancer with a sensitivity ranging from 71% to 96% and specificity from 33 to 100%. In some case series, such results have been validated but this is mostly using internal validation and hence, more work is needed. Furthermore, standardised sampling and analysis methods are lacking, impeding interstudy comparison and clinical implementation. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the currently available data on E-nose technology for lung cancer detection.
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.