Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33855362›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2021

Breath analysis for the detection of digestive tract malignancies: systematic review.

K F H Hintzen, J Grote, A G W E Wintjens, T Lubbers, M M M Eussen, F J van Schooten, N D Bouvy, A Peeters

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K F H HintzenDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J GroteDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
A G W E WintjensDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
T LubbersDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
M M M EussenDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
F J van SchootenDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
N D BouvyDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
A PeetersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades there has been growing interest in the use of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath as biomarkers for the diagnosis of multiple variants of cancer. This review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and current status of VOC analysis in exhaled breath for the detection of cancer in the digestive tract.

methodsPubMed and the Cochrane Library database were searched for VOC analysis studies, in which exhaled air was used to detect gastro-oesophageal, liver, pancreatic, and intestinal cancer in humans, Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. Data on diagnostic performance, VOCs with discriminative power, and methodological information were extracted from the included articles.

resultsTwenty-three articles were included (gastro-oesophageal cancer n = 14, liver cancer n = 1, pancreatic cancer n = 2, colorectal cancer n = 6). Methodological issues included different modalities of patient preparation and sampling and platform used. The sensitivity and specificity of VOC analysis ranged from 66.7 to 100 per cent and from 48.1 to 97.9 per cent respectively. Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, no pooling of the results could be performed. Of the VOCs found, 32 were identified in more than one study. Nineteen were reported as cancer type-specific, whereas 13 were found in different cancer types. Overall, decanal, nonanal, and acetone were the most frequently identified.

conclusionThe literature on VOC analysis has documented a lack of standardization in study designs. Heterogeneity between the studies and insufficient validation of the results make interpretation of the outcomes challenging. To reach clinical applicability, future studies on breath analysis should provide an accurate description of the methodology and validate their findings.

Indexed as

Breath TestsBiomarkers, TumorGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsVolatile Organic CompoundsBiomarkers, TumorVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID33855362
PMCPMC8047095
OpenAlexW3154272342

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.