2011Pediatric PulmonologyRequires access

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

Open publisher page 34 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Exhaled nitric oxide, Repeatability, Medicine, Significant difference, Mean difference, Exhalation, Limits of agreement, Asthma

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative repeatability of two handheld fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitors — Research Paper | ScholarLens