4.1 Review

Exhaled nitric oxide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S165780

关键词

biomarker; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; fractional exhaled nitric oxide; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81700025]
  2. Medical and Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang [2018245859]
  3. Beijing Medical Health Foundation [YWJKJJHKYJJ-HX32]
  4. Medical Science and Technology Plan Projects of Ningbo [2016A03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) is a useful and noninvasive biomarker for eosinophilic airway inflammation, particularly in asthma. However, its utility in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate FENO levels in COPD. Methods: A search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registry was conducted from inception to January 2018. Studies were included if they reported FENO levels in patients with COPD and healthy controls. We then extracted relevant information and analyzed data. Standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied in this meta-analysis. Results: A total of 2,073 studies were reviewed for eligibility, with 24 studies pooled for analysis. The FENO levels in patients with COPD were elevated mildly compared with healthy controls (SMD 1.28, 95% CI 0.60-1.96). A similar result was also observed in stable COPD, with an SMD of 1.21 (95% CI 0.47-1.96). On the other hand, we found no association between FENO levels and exacerbated COPD. Additionally, for patients with COPD, ex-smokers had higher levels of FENO than current smokers (SMD 2.05, 95% CI 1.13-2.97). Conclusion: Our studies demonstrated a mild elevation of FENO in COPD, and the association between exacerbated COPD and FENO levels needs to be further explored. The potential mechanism is still unknown and conflicting.

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

4.1
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