ArticlePloS one2022
Clinical trial and detection of SARS-CoV-2 by a commercial breath analysis test based on Terahertz technology.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exhaled Volatile Organic Compounds Detection in Pneumonia Screening: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis.Lung · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of eNose technology in COVID-19 patients after hospitalization.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public health threats such as the current COVID-19 pandemics have required prompt action by the local, national, and international authorities. Rapid and noninvasive diagnostic methods may provide on-site detection and immediate social isolation, used as tools to rapidly control virus spreading. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to evaluate a commercial breath analysis test (TERA.Bio®) and deterministic algorithm for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 spectral signature of Volatile Organic Compounds present in exhaled air samples of suspicious persons from southern Brazil. A casuistic total of 70 infected and 500 non-infected patients were sampled, tested, and results later compared to RT-qPCR as gold standard. Overall, the test showed 92.6% sensitivity and 96.0% specificity. No statistical correlation was observed between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and infection by other respiratory diseases. Further studies should focus on infection monitoring among asymptomatic persons. In conclusion, the breath analysis test herein may be used as a fast, on-site, and easy-to-apply screening method for diagnosing COVID-19.
Indexed as
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.