ReviewPorto biomedical journal
Diagnosis of pathological conditions through electronic nose analysis of urine samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel method and classification criteria for analyzing urine turbidity and its relationship with urine dry chemical parameters.PloS one · 2025Observational
- Bile Acid Diarrhea: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in the Era of Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Electronic nose versus VITEK 2 system for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- The volatilome signatures of Plasmodium falciparum parasites during the intraerythrocytic development cycle in vitro under exposure to artemisinin drug.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently available urinalysis methods are often applied for screening and monitoring of several pathologies. However, traditionally analyzed biomarkers in urinalysis still lack sensitivity and specificity to accurately diagnose some diseases. Several studies have proposed the use of electronic noses (eNoses) for the analysis of volatile organic compounds in urine samples that may, directly or indirectly, correlate with certain pathologies. Hence, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies concerning the use of portable electronic noses for diagnosis or monitoring of pathologies through analysis of urine samples. A systematic review of the literature was held according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The results of the revised studies showed that there are various volatile organic compound profiles, identified through eNose analysis, that may be applied for diagnosis or monitoring of several diseases, such as diabetes, urinary tract infection, inflammatory bowel disease, and kidney disease. A meta-analysis was conducted taking into consideration the data of 10 of the initial 24 articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 84% (95% CI, 0.72-0.92), 85% (95% CI, 0.75-0.91), and 24.17 (95% CI: 7.85-74.41), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.897. These results suggest that eNose technology has adequate diagnostic accuracy for several pathologies and could be a promising screening tool for clinical settings. However, more studies are needed to reduce heterogeneity between results.
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.