Diagnostic accuracy of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) with or without blood eosinophils in childhood, adolescent, and adult asthma: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Roy, M.-A.; Ramphul, M.; Gronnier, M.; Divall, P.; Paquette, S. L.; Ducharme, F.; Cote, A.; Gaillard, E.; Couillard, S.
Show abstract
IntroductionAsthma poses a diagnostic challenge due to its intermittent symptoms and variable airflow obstruction. Diagnostic assessments such as spirometry and bronchodilator response are frequently non-diagnostic, necessitating confirmatory bronchial provocation testing. Biomarkers of type-2 inflammation --exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and blood eosinophil counts (BEC)-- are useful in asthma, but their diagnostic values in children and in combination (FeNO+BEC) are unclear. This systematic review will evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FeNO alone or in combination with BEC in paediatric and adult asthma. Methods and AnalysisThis protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The review will include studies of any design on the diagnostic accuracy of FeNO with or without BEC in asthma compared to the reference standards bronchodilator response and provocation testing in patients [≥] 5 years old selected from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Screening, study selection, and data extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. Meta-analysis will be carried out by pooling the sensitivity and specificity of FeNO alone or in combination with BEC in a bivariate random effects model allowing the generation of summarised operating characteristic curves and summary points. Further analysis utilising a multiple thresholds model will enable the computation of diagnostic thresholds for FeNO. Ethics and DisseminationNo patient data will be stored without prior approval from ethics committee. The findings will be submitted in a peer-reviewed publication. RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42023489738 SOCIAL MEDIA MESSAGEDiagnosing asthma is challenging. Spirometry and bronchodilator reversibility are often non-diagnostic, calling for provocation testing. Our systematic review will explore complementary approaches using FeNO with and without the blood eosinophil count.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Adrenaline (epinephrine) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis 96%
- Day-to-day Variability Indices improve utility of Oscillometry in Paediatric Asthma 95%
- Airway microbiota in young people across four continents differ by country, asthma status and inflammatory phenotype 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Turning green: the impact of changing to more eco-friendly respiratory healthcare. A carbon and cost analysis of Dutch prescription data 92%
- Safety and feasibility of lung biopsy in diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 90%
- Identification of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome subphenotypes denovo using routine clinical data: a retrospective analysis of ARDS clinical trials 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Asthma exacerbations and eosinophilia in the UK Biobank: a Genome-Wide Association Study 95%
- COPD in the time of COVID-19: An analysis of acute exacerbations and reported behavioural changes in patients with COPD 93%
- Association between upper and lower respiratory disease among patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia: an international study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combination of ipratropium bromide and salbutamol in children and adolescents with asthma: a meta-analysis 95%
- Mind the gap: Mapping Variation between National and Local Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Paediatric Asthma from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands 94%
- Reduction in COPD exacerbations during COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.