手持式分数呼气一氧化氮测量的比较验证。

Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2025.2499652
Sanne van Deelen, Gerdien A Tramper-Stranders, Rudi W Hendriks, Marcel J T Reinders, Gert-Jan Braunstahl
{"title":"手持式分数呼气一氧化氮测量的比较验证。","authors":"Sanne van Deelen, Gerdien A Tramper-Stranders, Rudi W Hendriks, Marcel J T Reinders, Gert-Jan Braunstahl","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2499652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive method to determine the degree of airway inflammation. Handheld devices such as the Vivatmo Me are used for home monitoring. Differences were found between the Vivatmo Me and standard measurements with the NIOX VERO. Therefore, we aimed to determine the accuracy of the Vivatmo Me for FeNO measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients with an appointment for FeNO-measurement according to regular care, were invited to perform the FeNO measurement with both devices. From these measurements the FeNO values were compared, and the device user-friendliness was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and sixty-four patients were included. The number of attempts needed for a successful measurement and the failure rate were higher with the Vivatmo Me. Although the measurements were highly correlated, a significant difference (<i>p</i> < 0.001) was found between FeNO values measured with both devices. From the Vivatmo measurements, 32% did not fall within the claimed accuracy ranges. A linear correction on the FeNO values reduced this number.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that the Vivatmo Me does not comply with the claimed accuracy of clinical FeNO measurements and the measurement is challenging to perform. By applying the proposed correction, the comparative validity of the FeNO measurement improves and therefore its clinical usefulness.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"643-650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative validation of handheld fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements.\",\"authors\":\"Sanne van Deelen, Gerdien A Tramper-Stranders, Rudi W Hendriks, Marcel J T Reinders, Gert-Jan Braunstahl\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17434440.2025.2499652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive method to determine the degree of airway inflammation. Handheld devices such as the Vivatmo Me are used for home monitoring. Differences were found between the Vivatmo Me and standard measurements with the NIOX VERO. Therefore, we aimed to determine the accuracy of the Vivatmo Me for FeNO measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients with an appointment for FeNO-measurement according to regular care, were invited to perform the FeNO measurement with both devices. From these measurements the FeNO values were compared, and the device user-friendliness was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and sixty-four patients were included. The number of attempts needed for a successful measurement and the failure rate were higher with the Vivatmo Me. Although the measurements were highly correlated, a significant difference (<i>p</i> < 0.001) was found between FeNO values measured with both devices. From the Vivatmo measurements, 32% did not fall within the claimed accuracy ranges. A linear correction on the FeNO values reduced this number.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that the Vivatmo Me does not comply with the claimed accuracy of clinical FeNO measurements and the measurement is challenging to perform. By applying the proposed correction, the comparative validity of the FeNO measurement improves and therefore its clinical usefulness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"643-650\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2499652\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2499652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:分数呼气型一氧化氮(FeNO)是一种检测气道炎症程度的无创方法。Vivatmo Me等手持设备用于家庭监控。Vivatmo Me与NIOX VERO的标准测量值之间存在差异。因此,我们旨在确定Vivatmo Me用于FeNO测量的准确性。方法:选择按常规护理预约进行FeNO测量的成年患者,分别使用两种仪器进行FeNO测量。从这些测量中比较了FeNO值,并确定了设备的用户友好性。结果:共纳入164例患者。成功测量所需的尝试次数和失败率使用Vivatmo Me更高。结论:我们的研究结果表明,Vivatmo Me不符合临床FeNO测量的准确性,并且测量具有挑战性。通过应用所提出的校正,FeNO测量的相对效度提高,因此其临床有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative validation of handheld fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements.

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive method to determine the degree of airway inflammation. Handheld devices such as the Vivatmo Me are used for home monitoring. Differences were found between the Vivatmo Me and standard measurements with the NIOX VERO. Therefore, we aimed to determine the accuracy of the Vivatmo Me for FeNO measurements.

Methods: Adult patients with an appointment for FeNO-measurement according to regular care, were invited to perform the FeNO measurement with both devices. From these measurements the FeNO values were compared, and the device user-friendliness was determined.

Results: One hundred and sixty-four patients were included. The number of attempts needed for a successful measurement and the failure rate were higher with the Vivatmo Me. Although the measurements were highly correlated, a significant difference (p < 0.001) was found between FeNO values measured with both devices. From the Vivatmo measurements, 32% did not fall within the claimed accuracy ranges. A linear correction on the FeNO values reduced this number.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the Vivatmo Me does not comply with the claimed accuracy of clinical FeNO measurements and the measurement is challenging to perform. By applying the proposed correction, the comparative validity of the FeNO measurement improves and therefore its clinical usefulness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信