SynthesisPloS one2023
A systematic review on the detection of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath in experimental animals in the context of gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases.
Synthesis 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.
- Volatile Organic Compounds in Biological Matrices as a Sensitive Weapon in Cancer Diagnosis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath has the potential to serve as an accurate diagnostic tool for gastro-intestinal diseases. Animal studies could be instrumental as a preclinical base and subsequent clinical translation to humans, as they are easier to standardize and better equipped to relate specific VOCs to metabolic and pathological processes. This review provides an overview of the study design, characteristics and methodological quality of previously published animal studies on analysis of exhaled breath in gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases. Guidelines are provided for standardization in study design and breath collection methods to improve comparability, avoid duplication of research and reduce discomfort of animals in future studies.
methodsPubMed and Embase database were searched for animal studies using exhaled breath analysis to detect gastro-intestinal diseases. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. Information on study design, standardization methods, animal models, breath collection methods and identified VOCs were extracted from the included studies.
results10 studies were included (acute liver failure n = 1, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis n = 1, hepatic ischemia n = 2, mesenteric ischemia n = 2, sepsis and peritonitis n = 3, colitis n = 1). Rats were used in most of the studies. Exhaled breath was mostly collected using invasive procedures as tracheal cannulation or tracheostomy. Poor reporting on standardization, breath collection methods, analytical techniques, as well as heterogeneity of the studies, complicate comparison of the different studies.
conclusionPoor reporting of essential methodological details impaired comprehensive summarizing the various studies on exhaled breath in gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases. Potential pitfalls in study design, and suggestions for improvement of study design are discussed which, when applied, lead to consistent and generalizable results and a reduction in the use of laboratory animals. Refining the methodological quality of animal studies has the potential to improve subsequent clinical trial design.
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.