Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36429465›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Accuracy of a Screening Tool in Epidemiological Studies-An Example of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Paediatric Asthma.

Kamil Barański, Vivi Schlünssen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kamil BarańskiDepartment of Epidemiology, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0106-9662
Vivi SchlünssenResearch Unit for Environment, Occupation and Health, Department of Public Health, Danish Ramazzini Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4915-1734
Aarhus University · DKMedical University of Silesia · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are widely used in medicine, especially in the clinical setting. The doctor's decision regarding the treatment process is mostly based on the result of the diagnostic test. The value of the test is expressed by its accuracy. It is easier to verify the accuracy of a diagnostic test in a clinical setting in comparison to an epidemiological setting. Moreover, a very good test may not work in epidemiological settings in the same effective way as in a clinical setting, especially because the accuracy is affected by the prevalence of the disease. The aim of the study is to assess the accuracy of FeNO measurement in different respiratory disorders or symptoms, including their prevalence, in a childhood population. The secondary aim is to suggest the optimal FeNO cut-off for epidemiological screening for respiratory diseases and symptoms.

methodsThe cross-sectional study included 447 children (50.8% boys and 49.2% girls) aged 6-9 years. An adapted version of the ISAAC questionnaire was used for the assessment of the respiratory status. FeNO was measured with an electrochemical device (Niox Mino) according to ERS/ATS recommendations. For interpretation, the FeNO cut-off values of 20 parts per billion (ppb), 25 ppb and 35 ppb were applied taking the real-life prevalence of the disease or symptoms into consideration and also for simulated prevalences of 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% for the interpretation of the accuracy of the test. The accuracy was calculated according to the following formula: Accuracy = (Prevalence) (Sensitivity) + (1- Prevalence) (Specificity). The area under the curve was calculated based on logistic regression.

resultsFor all respiratory outcomes, FeNO accuracy decreased with increasing prevalence, and in general the area under the curve (AUC) was low. The highest FeNO accuracy was found for any asthma diagnosis (with possible coexisting diseases/symptoms), i.e., 78.6%, 92.8% and 88.5% for FeNO cut-offs >19 ppb, >24 ppb and >34 ppb, respectively. The AUC was 0.628. For the same FeNO cut-offs, the accuracy of an asthma diagnosis without any coexisting diseases and symptoms was 81.2%, 87.5%, 92.9%, respectively, with an AUC of 0.757.

conclusionFeNO accuracy decreases with increasing prevalence of the respiratory disease and symptoms. The best accuracy for the FeNO cut-off in the screening of asthma for epidemiological purposes is 35 ppb. For isolated asthma, the best accuracy for FeNO was 92.9%.

Indexed as

AsthmaNitric OxideBreath TestsChildCross-Sectional StudiesExhalationFemaleHumansMaleNitric OxideaccuracyFeNOfractional exhaled nitric oxidescreening tool

Identifiers

PMID36429465
PMCPMC9690257
OpenAlexW4308712214

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.