Accuracy of Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement as a Diagnostic Test for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare disorder causing chronic otosinopulmonary disease, generally diagnosed through evaluation of respiratory ciliary ultrastructure and/or genetic testing. Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement is used as a PCD screening test because patients with PCD have low nNO levels, but its value as a diagnostic test remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review to assess the utility of nNO measurement (index test) as a diagnostic tool compared with the reference standard of electron microscopy (EM) evaluation of ciliary defects and/or detection of biallelic mutations in PCD genes. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases were searched for reference sources from database inception through July 29, 2016. DATA EXTRACTION: Study inclusion was limited to publications with rigorous nNO index testing, reference standard diagnostic testing with EM and/or genetics, and calculable diagnostic accuracy information for cooperative patients (generally >5 yr old) with high suspicion of PCD. SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis provided a summary estimate for sensitivity and specificity and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the certainty of evidence. In 12 study populations (1,344 patients comprising 514 with PCD and 830 without PCD), using a reference standard of EM alone or EM and/or genetic testing, summary sensitivity was 97.6% (92.7-99.2) and specificity was 96.0% (87.9-98.7), with a positive likelihood ratio of 24.3 (7.6-76.9), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.03 (0.01-0.08), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 956.8 (141.2-6481.5) for nNO measurements. After studies using EM alone as the reference standard were excluded, the seven studies using an extended reference standard of EM and/or genetic testing showed a summary sensitivity of nNO measurements of 96.3% (88.7-98.9) and specificity of 96.4% (85.1-99.2), with a positive likelihood ratio of 26.5 (5.9-119.1), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 (0.01-0.12), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 699.3 (67.4-7256.0). Certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: nNO is a sensitive and specific test for PCD in cooperative patients (generally >5 yr old) with high clinical suspicion for this disease. With a moderate level of evidence, this meta-analysis confirms that nNO testing using velum closure maneuvers has diagnostic accuracy similar to EM and/or genetic testing for PCD when cystic fibrosis is ruled out. Thus, low nNO values accompanied by an appropriate clinical phenotype could be used as a diagnostic PCD test, though EM and/or genetics will continue to provide confirmatory information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".