Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39678905›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2024

Collection methods of exhaled volatile organic compounds for lung cancer screening and diagnosis: a systematic review.

Yuhang He, Zhixia Su, Taining Sha, Xiaoping Yu, Hong Guo, Yujian Tao, Liting Liao, Yanyan Zhang, Guotao Lu, Guangyu Lu and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Systematic comparison of methods for offline breath sampling.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025
    Article
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

11 authors.

Yuhang He *Department of Health Management Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1221-7421
Zhixia Su *School of Public Health, Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Taining Sha *School of Public Health, Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6065-8744
Xiaoping YuDepartment of Health Management Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Hong GuoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yujian TaoDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Liting LiaoDepartment of Basic Medicine, Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yanyan ZhangTesting Center of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Guotao LuYangzhou Key Laboratory of Pancreatic Disease, Institute of Digestive Diseases, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Guangyu LuSchool of Public Health, Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Weijuan GongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The identification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath has garnered significant research attention as a means of screening and diagnosing lung cancer in recent decades. However, there is no universally accepted protocol for the collection of breath samples to measure VOCs in the clinical context. The purpose of this study was to summarize the current sampling techniques used to obtain VOCs from exhaled breath specifically in the context of lung cancer screening and diagnosis. Methods: We searched four major literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library) to identify studies published from January 1985 to October 2023. Trials that analyzed endogenous VOCs within exhaled breath to screen or diagnose lung cancer were included. The methods used for exhaled breath collection were divided under the following headings: before collection (patient preparation, environmental preparation, contamination detection), during collection (time of breath collection, type of container, breath fraction selected, the volume and route of breath), and after collection (storage of breath samples, VOCs stability). Results: A total of 89 studies involving 6,409 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer were selected. The methods used to collect the breath varied substantially among the studies. A separate room was prepared for breath collection in 29 studies, the physiological state of the participants was described in 57 studies, and environmental considerations were reported in 41 studies. Polymer bags, specifically Tedlar bags, were the predominant choice for breath sample collection and were used in 58 out of the 89 studies. Alveolar breath was the most commonly selected breath fraction, which was used in 43 studies. Only 15 studies reported the storage conditions of the breath samples, which ranged from -40 ℃ to room temperature, and the stability of VOCs was recorded in 41 studies. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for breath collection methods to be standardized to maximize the potential of this diagnostic approach. The summarized exhaled breath collection process proposed in this study based on included studies may serve as a method for future clinical research.

Indexed as

breath collection methodLung cancervolatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Identifiers

PMID39678905
PMCPMC11635225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.