IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p14746-d968142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Accuracy of a Screening Tool in Epidemiological Studies—An Example of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Paediatric Asthma

Author

Listed:
  • Kamil Barański

    (Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland)

  • Vivi Schlünssen

    (Research Unit for Environment, Occupation and Health, Department of Public Health, Danish Ramazzini Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark)

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are widely used in medicine, especially in the clinical setting. The doctor’s decision regarding the treatment process is mostly based on the result of the diagnostic test. The value of the test is expressed by its accuracy. It is easier to verify the accuracy of a diagnostic test in a clinical setting in comparison to an epidemiological setting. Moreover, a very good test may not work in epidemiological settings in the same effective way as in a clinical setting, especially because the accuracy is affected by the prevalence of the disease. The aim of the study is to assess the accuracy of FeNO measurement in different respiratory disorders or symptoms, including their prevalence, in a childhood population. The secondary aim is to suggest the optimal FeNO cut-off for epidemiological screening for respiratory diseases and symptoms. Methods: The cross-sectional study included 447 children (50.8% boys and 49.2% girls) aged 6–9 years. An adapted version of the ISAAC questionnaire was used for the assessment of the respiratory status. FeNO was measured with an electrochemical device (Niox Mino) according to ERS/ATS recommendations. For interpretation, the FeNO cut-off values of 20 parts per billion (ppb), 25 ppb and 35 ppb were applied taking the real-life prevalence of the disease or symptoms into consideration and also for simulated prevalences of 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% for the interpretation of the accuracy of the test. The accuracy was calculated according to the following formula: Accuracy = (Prevalence) (Sensitivity) + (1- Prevalence) (Specificity). The area under the curve was calculated based on logistic regression. Results: For all respiratory outcomes, FeNO accuracy decreased with increasing prevalence, and in general the area under the curve (AUC) was low. The highest FeNO accuracy was found for any asthma diagnosis (with possible coexisting diseases/symptoms), i.e., 78.6%, 92.8% and 88.5% for FeNO cut-offs >19 ppb, >24 ppb and >34 ppb, respectively. The AUC was 0.628. For the same FeNO cut-offs, the accuracy of an asthma diagnosis without any coexisting diseases and symptoms was 81.2%, 87.5%, 92.9%, respectively, with an AUC of 0.757. Conclusion: FeNO accuracy decreases with increasing prevalence of the respiratory disease and symptoms. The best accuracy for the FeNO cut-off in the screening of asthma for epidemiological purposes is 35 ppb. For isolated asthma, the best accuracy for FeNO was 92.9%.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamil Barański & Vivi Schlünssen, 2022. "The Accuracy of a Screening Tool in Epidemiological Studies—An Example of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Paediatric Asthma," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-7, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14746-:d:968142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14746/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14746/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14746-:d:968142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.