Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33103170›Full record

ArticleThe Analyst2021

Detection and quantification of exhaled volatile organic compounds in mechanically ventilated patients - comparison of two sampling methods.

Pouline M P van Oort, Iain R White, Waqar Ahmed, Craig Johnson, Jonathan Bannard-Smith, Timothy Felton, Lieuwe D Bos, Royston Goodacre, Paul Dark, Stephen J Fowler

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Analyst, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Volatilomes of human infection.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024
    Review
  7. Microbial Volatiles as Diagnostic Biomarkers of Bacterial Lung Infection in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Pouline M P van OortDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC - location Academic Medical Centre (AMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Iain R WhiteManchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Waqar AhmedManchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Craig JohnsonManchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jonathan Bannard-SmithManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. stephen.fowler@manchester.ac.uk.
Timothy FeltonManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. stephen.fowler@manchester.ac.uk.
Lieuwe D BosDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC - location Academic Medical Centre (AMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Royston GoodacreDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2230-645X
Paul DarkManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. stephen.fowler@manchester.ac.uk.
Stephen J FowlerManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. stephen.fowler@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4524-1663
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Nova Gorica · SI

Funding

Department of Health II-LA-0214-20009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exhaled breath analysis is a promising new diagnostic tool, but currently no standardised method for sampling is available in mechanically ventilated patients. We compared two breath sampling methods, first using an artificial ventilator circuit, then in "real life" in mechanically ventilated patients on the intensive care unit. In the laboratory circuit, a 24-component synthetic-breath volatile organic compound (VOC) mixture was injected into the system as air was sampled: (A) through a port on the exhalation limb of the circuit and (B) through a closed endo-bronchial suction catheter. Sorbent tubes were used to collect samples for analysis by thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Realistic mechanical ventilation rates and breath pressure-volume loops were established and method detection limits (MDLs) were calculated for all VOCs. Higher yields of VOCs were retrieved using the closed suction catheter; however, for several VOCs MDLs were compromised due to the background signal associated with plastic and rubber components in the catheters. Different brands of suction catheter were compared. Exhaled VOC data from 40 patient samples collected at two sites were then used to calculate the proportion of data analysed above the MDL. The relative performance of the two methods differed depending on the VOC under study and both methods showed sensitivity towards different exhaled VOCs. Furthermore, method performance differed depending on recruitment site, as the centres were equipped with different brands of respiratory equipment, an important consideration for the design of multicentre studies investigating exhaled VOCs in mechanically ventilated patients.

Indexed as

Volatile Organic CompoundsBreath TestsExhalationGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansRespiration, ArtificialVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID33103170
PMCPMC13444863
OpenAlexW3094473697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.