ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of usability and user-friendliness of three FeNO analyzers in a general population cohort of the LEAD study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker for airway inflammation measured by hand-held or stationary analyzers, but their usability was not previously assessed. NIOX VERO (CN), NObreath (BN), Vivatmo pro (BV), and CLD88 analyzer (reference, EC) were compared in a prospective study of the general population LEAD (Lung, hEart, sociAl, boDy) cohort, including the System Usability Scale and tests for equivalence at a clinically relevant range of ≤ 70 ppb with linear models and Bland-Altman plots. In 486 participants (62.4 ± 14.2 years old, 48.1% female), all hand-held analyzers had a good usability score, with BN scoring best. BV required the fewest attempts and time to measurement success, followed by BN. The FeNO results were clinically equivalent between devices (difference to EC 0.7-7.5 ppb) with increasing variability at higher FeNO values. The analyzers had an agreement of ≥ 95% at the threshold of ≥ 40 ppb. CN showed the lowest difference to EC, followed by BV. All portable analyzers showed good usability with an above-average usability score. The best usability score was observed with the BN device, while the BV device had the shortest measuring time and the fewest additional attempts. The lowest difference to the stationary EC analyzers was observed with the CN device.
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.