4.5 Article

Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 104, 期 9, 页码 1377-1380

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.005

关键词

Exhaled nitric oxide; Logan; NIOX MINO; NObreath; Reproducibility

资金

  1. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  2. Hungarian Scientific Research Foundation [OTKA 68808]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p < 0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p < 0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7%, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据