ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Potential Use of Exhaled Breath Condensate for Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 shedding in exhaled material: a systematic review.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Pooled it
- A comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of breath analysis in detection of COVID-19 through Volatile organic compounds.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2024Pooled it
- Occurrence of Central Nervous System Complications of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- New perspectives on 'Breathomics': metabolomic profiling of non-volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath using DI-FT-ICR-MS.Communications biology · 2024Article
- BoDV-1 Infection in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pediatric reports · 2023Review
- Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tomographic Findings (2000-2022).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection from breath - a proof-of-concept study.IJID regions · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays performed on respiratory samples collected through nasal swabs still represent the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Alternative methods to this invasive and time-consuming options are still being inquired, including the collection of airways lining fluids through exhaled breath condensate (EBC). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to explore the reliability of EBC as a way to collect respiratory specimens for RT-qPCR for diagnosis of COVID-19.
resultsA total of 4 studies (205 specimens), were ultimately collected, with a pooled sensitivity of 69.5% (95%CI 26.8-93.4), and a pooled specificity of 98.3% (95%CI 87.8-99.8), associated with high heterogeneity and scarce diagnostic agreement with the gold standard represented by nasal swabs (Cohen's kappa = 0.585). DISCUSSION: Even though non-invasive options for diagnosis of COVID-19 are still necessary, EBC-based RT-qPCR showed scarce diagnostic performances, ultimately impairing its implementation in real-world settings. However, as few studies have been carried out to date, and the studies included in the present review are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, further research are requested to fully characterize the actual reliability of EBC-based RT-qPCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.