Comparative repeatability of two handheld fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitors
Kirsty Kapande, Laura McConaghy, Isabella P. Douglas, Sonia McKenna, Jenny Hughes, David R. McCance, M. Ennis, Michael D. Shields
Abstract
Kirsty Kapande, Laura McConaghy, Isabella P. Douglas, Sonia McKenna, Jenny Hughes, David R. McCance, M. Ennis, Michael D. Shields
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of portable fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) devices is increasingly common in the diagnosis and management of allergic airways inflammation. METHODS: We tested two handheld FENO devices, to determine (a) if there was adequate intradevice repeatability to allow the use of single breath testing, and (b) if the devices could be used interchangeably. In a mixed pediatric population, including normal, asthmatic, and children with peanut allergies, 858 paired values were collected from the NIOX-MINO® and/or the NObreath® devices. RESULTS: The NIOX-MINO® showed excellent repeatability (mean difference of 0.1 with 95% limits of agreement between -7.93 to 7.72 ppb), while the NObreath® showed good repeatability (mean difference of -1.61 with 95% limits of agreement between -14.1 and 10.8 ppb). Intradevice repeatability was good but not adequate and the NIOX-MINO® systematically produced higher results than the NObreath® [mean difference of 7.8 ppb with 95% limits of agreement from -11.55 to 27.52 ppb (-33% to 290%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the manufacturer's advice that single breath testing is appropriate for the NIOX-MINO®. NObreath® results indicate that the mean of more than one breath should be utilized. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.
OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
BACKGROUND: The use of portable fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) devices is increasingly common in the diagnosis and management of allergic airways inflammation. METHODS: We tested two handheld FENO devices, to determine (a) if there was adequate intradevice repeatability to allow the use of single breath testing, and (b) if the devices could be used interchangeably. In a mixed pediatric population, including normal, asthmatic, and children with peanut allergies, 858 paired values were collected from the NIOX-MINO® and/or the NObreath® devices. RESULTS: The NIOX-MINO® showed excellent repeatability (mean difference of 0.1 with 95% limits of agreement between -7.93 to 7.72 ppb), while the NObreath® showed good repeatability (mean difference of -1.61 with 95% limits of agreement between -14.1 and 10.8 ppb). Intradevice repeatability was good but not adequate and the NIOX-MINO® systematically produced higher results than the NObreath® [mean difference of 7.8 ppb with 95% limits of agreement from -11.55 to 27.52 ppb (-33% to 290%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the manufacturer's advice that single breath testing is appropriate for the NIOX-MINO®. NObreath® results indicate that the mean of more than one breath should be utilized. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.
Key concepts: Exhaled nitric oxide, Repeatability, Medicine, Significant difference, Mean difference, Exhalation, Limits of agreement, Asthma