Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

External validation of blood eosinophils, FE NO and serum periostin as surrogates for sputum eosinophils in asthma

Open access
Wagener, A H, de Nijs, S B, Lutter, R, Sousa, A R, Weersink, E J M, Bel, E H, Sterk, P J·2015·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monitoring sputum eosinophils in asthma predicts exacerbations and improves management of asthma. Thus far, blood eosinophils and FE(NO) show contradictory results in predicting eosinophilic airway inflammation. More recently, serum periostin was proposed as a novel biomarker for eosinophilic inflammation. OBJECTIVES: Quantifying the mutual relationships of blood eosinophils, FE(NO), and serum periostin with sputum eosinophils by external validation in two independent cohorts across various severities of asthma. METHODS: The first cohort consisted of 110 patients with mild to moderate asthma (external validation cohort). The replication cohort consisted of 37 patients with moderate to severe asthma. Both cohorts were evaluated cross-sectionally. Sputum was induced for the assessment of eosinophils. In parallel, blood eosinophil counts, serum periostin concentrations and FENO were assessed. The diagnostic accuracy of these markers to identify eosinophilic asthma (sputum eosinophils ≥3%) was calculated using receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (ROC AUC). RESULTS: In the external validation cohort, ROC AUC for blood eosinophils was 89% (p<0.001) and for FE(NO) level 78% (p<0.001) to detect sputum eosinophilia ≥3%. Serum periostin was not able to distinguish eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic airway inflammation (ROC AUC=55%, p=0.44). When combining these three variables, no improvement was seen. The diagnostic value of blood eosinophils was confirmed in the replication cohort (ROC AUC 85%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild to moderate asthma, as well as patients with more severe asthma, blood eosinophils had the highest accuracy in the identification of sputum eosinophilia in asthma. The use of blood eosinophils can facilitate individualised treatment and management of asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1846 and NTR2364.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205634

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Wagener, A. H., de Nijs, S. B., Lutter, R., Sousa, A. R., Weersink, E. J. M., Bel, E. H., & Sterk, P. J.
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-11-24
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
115-120
ISSN
  • 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3296
OpenAlex
W2110534370
Cited by
429
References
5
FWCI
24.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: External validation of blood eosinophils, FE NO and serum periostin as surrogates for sputum eosinophils in asthma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205634
The paper
Wagener, A. H., de Nijs, S. B., Lutter, R., Sousa, A. R., Weersink, E. J. M., Bel, E. H., & Sterk, P. J. (2015). External validation of blood eosinophils, FE NO and serum periostin as surrogates for sputum eosinophils in asthma. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205634

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.