ArticlePloS one2023
The accuracy of an electronic nose to diagnose tuberculosis in patients referred to an expert centre.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Technologies for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Exhaled Breath Samples: A Systematic Scoping Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn electronic nose (eNose) device has shown a high specificity and sensitivity to diagnose or rule out tuberculosis (TB) in the past. The aim of this study was to evaluate its performance in patients referred to INERAM.
methodsPatients aged ≥15 years were included. A history, physical examination, chest radiography (CRX) and microbiological evaluation of a sputum sample were performed in all participants, as well as a 5-minute breath test with the eNose. TB diagnosis was preferably established by the gold standard and compared to the eNose predictions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess potential risk factors for erroneous classification results by the eNose.
results107 participants with signs and symptoms of TB were enrolled of which 91 (85.0%) were diagnosed with TB. The blind eNose predictions resulted in an accuracy of 50%; a sensitivity of 52.3% (CI 95%: 39.6-64.7%) and a specificity of 36.4% (CI 95%: 12.4-68.4%). Risk factors for erroneous classifications by the eNose were older age (multivariate analysis: OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.10-2.18, p = 0.012) and antibiotic use (multivariate analysis: OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.06-9.66, p = 0.040).
conclusionIn this study, the accuracy of the eNose to diagnose TB in a tertiary referral hospital was only 50%. The use of antibiotics and older age represent important factors negatively influencing the diagnostic accuracy of the eNose. Therefore, its use should probably be restricted to screening in high-risk communities in less complex healthcare settings.
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.