Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767259›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2022

Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Max H M C Scheepers, Zaid Al-Difaie, Lloyd Brandts, Andrea Peeters, Bart van Grinsven, Nicole D Bouvy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Advances in the application of exhaled breath analysis technology in the detection and diagnosis of liver failure].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Max H M C ScheepersGROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Zaid Al-DifaieGROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Lloyd BrandtsDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands.
Andrea PeetersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands.
Bart van GrinsvenSensor Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Nicole D BouvyDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There has been a growing interest in the use of electronic noses (e-noses) in detecting volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath for the diagnosis of cancer. However, no systematic evaluation has been performed of the overall diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for cancer detection in exhaled breath. Objective: To provide an overview of the diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for the detection of cancer. Data Sources: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases (January 1, 2000, to July 1, 2021). Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) use of e-nose technology, (2) detection of cancer, and (3) analysis of exhaled breath. Exclusion criteria were (1) studies published before 2000; (2) studies not performed in humans; (3) studies not performed in adults; (4) studies that only analyzed biofluids; and (5) studies that exclusively used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze exhaled breath samples. Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were used for the identification, screening, eligibility, and selection process. Quality assessment was performed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Generalized mixed-effects bivariate meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: This review identified 52 articles with a total of 3677 patients with cancer. All studies were feasibility studies. The sensitivity of e-noses ranged from 48.3% to 95.8% and the specificity from 10.0% to 100.0%. Pooled analysis resulted in a mean (SE) area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%), a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%), and a specificity of 87% (95% CI, 81%-92%). Considerable heterogeneity existed among the studies because of differences in the selection of patients, endogenous and exogenous factors, and collection of exhaled breath. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this review indicate that e-noses have a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of cancer in exhaled breath. However, most studies were feasibility studies with small sample sizes, a lack of standardization, and a high risk of bias. The lack of standardization and reproducibility of e-nose research should be addressed in future research.

Indexed as

Electronic NoseNeoplasmsAdultBreath TestsExhalationHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35767259
PMCPMC9244610

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.