BMC pulmonary medicine · 2014
Validation of a portable nitric oxide analyzer for screening in primary ciliary dyskinesias.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harris Amanda, Bhullar Esther, Gove Kerry, Joslin Rhiannon, Pelling Jennifer, Evans Hazel J, Walker Woolf T, Lucas Jane S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) levels are very low in primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) and it is used as a screening test.
METHODS: We assessed the reliability and usability of a hand-held analyser in comparison to a stationary nitric oxide (NO) analyser in 50 participants (15 healthy, 13 PCD, 22 other respiratory diseases; age 6-79 years). Nasal NO was measured using a stationary NO analyser during a breath-holding maneuver, and using a hand-held analyser during tidal breathing, sampling at 2 ml/sec or 5 ml/sec. The three methods were compared for their specificity and sensitivity as a screen for PCD, their success rate in different age groups, within subject repeatability and acceptability. Correlation between methods was assessed.
RESULTS: Valid nNO measurements were obtained in 94% of participants using the stationary analyser, 96% using the hand-held analyser at 5 ml/sec and 76% at 2 ml/sec. The hand-held device at 5 ml/sec had excellent sensitivity and specificity as a screening test for PCD during tidal breathing (cut-off of 30 nL/min,100% sensitivity, >95% specificity). The cut-off using the stationary analyser during breath-hold was 38 nL/min (100% sensitivity, 95% specificity). The stationary and hand-held analyser (5 ml/sec) showed reasonable within-subject repeatability(% coefficient of variation = 15).
CONCLUSION: The hand-held NO analyser provides a promising screening tool for PCD.
METHODS: We assessed the reliability and usability of a hand-held analyser in comparison to a stationary nitric oxide (NO) analyser in 50 participants (15 healthy, 13 PCD, 22 other respiratory diseases; age 6-79 years). Nasal NO was measured using a stationary NO analyser during a breath-holding maneuver, and using a hand-held analyser during tidal breathing, sampling at 2 ml/sec or 5 ml/sec. The three methods were compared for their specificity and sensitivity as a screen for PCD, their success rate in different age groups, within subject repeatability and acceptability. Correlation between methods was assessed.
RESULTS: Valid nNO measurements were obtained in 94% of participants using the stationary analyser, 96% using the hand-held analyser at 5 ml/sec and 76% at 2 ml/sec. The hand-held device at 5 ml/sec had excellent sensitivity and specificity as a screening test for PCD during tidal breathing (cut-off of 30 nL/min,100% sensitivity, >95% specificity). The cut-off using the stationary analyser during breath-hold was 38 nL/min (100% sensitivity, 95% specificity). The stationary and hand-held analyser (5 ml/sec) showed reasonable within-subject repeatability(% coefficient of variation = 15).
CONCLUSION: The hand-held NO analyser provides a promising screening tool for PCD.