ReviewBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2025
Utility of Volatile Organic Compounds and Electronic Nose Technology for Breast Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review.
Review in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a leading cause of mortality in women worldwide, primarily due to challenges in early detection and limited access to timely treatment. While mammography is widely used, it may produce false positives and lead to overdiagnosis. Recent advancements suggest that electronic nose technology, based on the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), may offer a complementary non-invasive approach to breast cancer screening. This systematic review evaluates current detection methods and explores the feasibility and diagnostic value of the electronic nose, assessing its integration into existing clinical strategies.
methodsSTUDY
designA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Seventy-six original articles were included, alongside data from eight additional studies. Eligible studies were published in English or Spanish, evaluated VOCs as a breast cancer screening method, and reported identified VOCs. Systematic reviews, duplicates, editorials, and articles without full-text access were excluded. Information sources and search strategy: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, and Science Direct between September and October 2024. Keywords included: volatile organic compounds, breath biomarkers, volatolomics, breast cancer, breast carcinoma, screening, detection, and electronic nose. A total of 581 articles were retrieved: 64 from PubMed, 44 from Web of Science, 152 from Wiley, and 321 from Science Direct. STUDY SELECTION: Zotero was used for reference management and duplicate removal. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts; eligible full texts were reviewed, and discrepancies resolved by consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized form was used to collect author, publication year, population, intervention, comparator, main results, and analysis-relevant data. Three reviewers performed the extraction independently.
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.