Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36831932›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2023

Breath Analysis of COVID-19 Patients in a Tertiary UK Hospital by Optical Spectrometry: The E-Nose CoVal Study.

Steven Laird, Luke Debenham, Danny Chandla, Cathleen Chan, Emma Daulton, Johnathan Taylor, Palashika Bhat, Lisa Berry, Peter Munthali, James A Covington

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven LairdUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Luke DebenhamUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3300-7802
Danny ChandlaUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1127-1669
Cathleen ChanUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Emma DaultonSchool of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Johnathan TaylorUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9426-1038
Palashika BhatUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Lisa BerryUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Peter MunthaliUniversity of Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
James A CovingtonSchool of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1307-6488
University Hospital Coventry · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, diagnostic technology played a crucial role in managing outbreaks on a national and global level. One diagnostic modality that has shown promise is breath analysis, due to its non-invasive nature and ability to give a rapid result. In this study, a portable FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red) spectrometer was used to detect chemical components in the breath from Covid positive symptomatic and asymptomatic patients versus a control cohort of Covid negative patients. Eighty-five patients who had a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within the last 5 days were recruited to the study (36 symptomatic PCR positive, 23 asymptomatic PCR positive and 26 asymptomatic PCR negative). Data analysis indicated significant difference between the groups, with SARS-CoV-2 present on PCR versus the negative PCR control group producing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Similar results were obtained comparing symptomatic versus control and asymptomatic versus control. The asymptomatic results were higher than the symptomatic (0.88 vs. 0.80 AUC). When analysing individual chemicals, we found ethanol, methanol and acetaldehyde were the most important, with higher concentrations in the COVID-19 group, with symptomatic patients being higher than asymptomatic patients. This study has shown that breath analysis can provide significant results that distinguish patients with or without COVID-19 disease/carriage.

Indexed as

COVID-19Electronic NoseHospitalsHumansSARS-CoV-2United Kingdombreath analysisCOVID-19electronic noseoptical spectrometrySARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36831932
PMCPMC9953365
OpenAlexW4317608133

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.