TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of FENO for diagnosing asthma
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Karrasch, Stefan
AU - Linde, Klaus
AU - Rücker, Gerta
AU - Sommer, Harriet
AU - Karsch-Völk, Marlies
AU - Kleijnen, Jos
AU - Jörres, Rudolf A.
AU - Schneider, Antonius
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Karrasch S, et al.
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Background Measurement of FENO might substitute bronchial provocation for diagnosing asthma. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of FENO measurement compared with established reference standard. Methods Systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. Data sources were Medline, Embase and Scopus up to 29 November 2015. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate model. Additionally, summary receiver-operating characteristic curves were estimated. Results 26 studies with 4518 participants (median 113) were included. Risk of bias was considered low for six of seven items in five studies and for five items in seven studies. The overall sensitivity in the meta-analysis was 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.72), the overall specificity 0.82 (0.76 to 0.86), the diagnostic OR 9.23 (6.55 to 13.01) and the area under the curve 0.80 (0.77 to 0.85). In meta-regression analyses, higher cut-off values were associated with increasing specificity (OR 1.46 per 10 ppb increase in cut-off ) while there was no association with sensitivity. Sensitivities varied significantly within the different FENO devices, but not specificities. Neither prevalence, age, use of bronchoprovocation in >90% of participants or as exclusive reference standard test, nor risk of bias were significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions There appears to be a fair accuracy of FENO for making the diagnosis of asthma. The overall specificity was higher than sensitivity, which indicates a higher diagnostic potential for ruling in than for ruling out the diagnosis of asthma.
AB - Background Measurement of FENO might substitute bronchial provocation for diagnosing asthma. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of FENO measurement compared with established reference standard. Methods Systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. Data sources were Medline, Embase and Scopus up to 29 November 2015. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate model. Additionally, summary receiver-operating characteristic curves were estimated. Results 26 studies with 4518 participants (median 113) were included. Risk of bias was considered low for six of seven items in five studies and for five items in seven studies. The overall sensitivity in the meta-analysis was 0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.72), the overall specificity 0.82 (0.76 to 0.86), the diagnostic OR 9.23 (6.55 to 13.01) and the area under the curve 0.80 (0.77 to 0.85). In meta-regression analyses, higher cut-off values were associated with increasing specificity (OR 1.46 per 10 ppb increase in cut-off ) while there was no association with sensitivity. Sensitivities varied significantly within the different FENO devices, but not specificities. Neither prevalence, age, use of bronchoprovocation in >90% of participants or as exclusive reference standard test, nor risk of bias were significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions There appears to be a fair accuracy of FENO for making the diagnosis of asthma. The overall specificity was higher than sensitivity, which indicates a higher diagnostic potential for ruling in than for ruling out the diagnosis of asthma.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978863712&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208704
DO - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208704
M3 - Article
C2 - 27388487
AN - SCOPUS:84978863712
SN - 0040-6376
VL - 72
SP - 109
EP - 116
JO - Thorax
JF - Thorax
IS - 2
ER -