Cited by 115Advanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesBiomedical and Chemical Research

Breathomics for the clinician: the use of volatile organic compounds in respiratory diseases

Open access
Ibrahim, Wadah, Carr, Liesl, Cordell, Rebecca, Wilde, Michael J, Salman, Dahlia, Monks, Paul S, Thomas, Paul, Brightling, Chris E +2 more·2021·Thorax

Abstract

Exhaled breath analysis has the potential to provide valuable insight on the status of various metabolic pathways taking place in the lungs locally and other vital organs, via systemic circulation. For years, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been proposed as feasible alternative diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for different respiratory pathologies. We reviewed the currently published literature on the discovery of exhaled breath VOCs and their utilisation in various respiratory diseases Key barriers in the development of clinical breath tests include the lack of unified consensus for breath collection and analysis and the complexity of understanding the relationship between the exhaled VOCs and the underlying metabolic pathways. We present a comprehensive overview, in light of published literature and our experience from coordinating a national breathomics centre, of the progress made to date and some of the key challenges in the field and ways to overcome them. We particularly focus on the relevance of breathomics to clinicians and the valuable insights it adds to diagnostics and disease monitoring. Breathomics holds great promise and our findings merit further large-scale multicentre diagnostic studies using standardised protocols to help position this novel technology at the centre of respiratory disease diagnostics.

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-2020-215667

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several cohort studies using different eNose devices have shown that breathprints differed significantly between patients with ILD and healthy controls (100% accuracy), IPF and healthy controls (98.5% accuracy) and IPF and non-IPF ILD (91% accuracy).

    “Several cohort studies using different eNose devices have shown that breathprints differed significantly between patients with ILD and healthy controls (100% accuracy), IPF and healthy controls (98.5% accuracy) and IPF and non-IPF ILD (91% accuracy) (Ibrahim et al., 2021; van der Sar et al., 2021).”

    From Pulmonary fibrosis: Emerging diagnostic and therapeutic strategies (2023) · cites this paper as Ibrahim et al., 2021

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [29]Van De Kant K Jobsis Q Klaassen E Volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath differentiate between preschool children with and without recurrent wheeze Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2010 65 138
  2. [44]Fens N van der Schee MP Brinkman P Sterk PJ Exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose in airways disease. Established issues and key questions Clinical and experimental allergy: journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2013 43 7 705 15 23786277
  3. [94]Anhenn O Rabis T Sommerwerck U Detection of differences in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) of exhaled breath in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) compared to healthy controls (HC) European Respiratory Journal 2011 38 Suppl 55 4772
  4. [105]Shafiek H Fiorentino F Merino JL Using the Electronic Nose to Identify Airway Infection during COPD Exacerbations PloS one 2015 10 9 e0135199 PMC4564204 26353114

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ibrahim, W., Carr, L., Cordell, R., Wilde, M. J., Salman, D., Monks, P. S., Thomas, P., Brightling, C. E., Siddiqui, S., & Greening, N. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Greening, Neil J
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-01-07
Volume
76
Issue
5
Pages
514-521
ISSN
  • 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3296
OpenAlex
W3118534440
Cited by
115
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 5
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thorax (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Leicester (RM63J0013)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Biomedical and Chemical Research
Keywords
breathomics, breath analysis, volatile organic compounds, respiratory diseases, diagnostic biomarkers, prognostic factors, disease surveillance, clinical implementation, lung metabolism
MeSH terms
Breath Tests, Humans, Lung, Respiration Disorders, Biomarkers, Exhalation, Volatile Organic Compounds

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