Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical use of exhaled volatile organic compounds in pulmonary diseases: a systematic review

Open access
van de Kant, Kim DG, van der Sande, Linda JTM, Jöbsis, Quirijn, van Schayck, Onno CP, Dompeling, Edward·2012·Respiratory Research

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the potential of exhaled biomarkers, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to improve accurate diagnoses and management decisions in pulmonary diseases. The objective of this manuscript is to systematically review the current knowledge on exhaled VOCs with respect to their potential clinical use in asthma, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cystic fibrosis (CF), and respiratory tract infections. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, and reference lists of retrieved studies. Controlled, clinical, English-language studies exploring the diagnostic and monitoring value of VOCs in asthma, COPD, CF, lung cancer and respiratory tract infections were included. Data on study design, setting, participant characteristics, VOCs techniques, and outcome measures were extracted. Seventy-three studies were included, counting in total 3,952 patients and 2,973 healthy controls. The collection and analysis of exhaled VOCs is non-invasive and could be easily applied in the broad range of patients, including subjects with severe disease and children. Various research groups demonstrated that VOCs profiles could accurately distinguish patients with a pulmonary disease from healthy controls. Pulmonary diseases seem to be characterized by a disease specific breath-print, as distinct profiles were found in patients with dissimilar diseases. The heterogeneity of studies challenged the inter-laboratory comparability. In conclusion, profiles of VOCs are potentially able to accurately diagnose various pulmonary diseases. Despite these promising findings, multiple challenges such as further standardization and validation of the diverse techniques need to be mastered before VOCs can be applied into clinical practice.

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 · 10.1186/1465-9921-13-117

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
van de Kant, K. D., van der Sande, L. J., Jöbsis, Q., van Schayck, O. C., & Dompeling, E.
Venue
Respiratory Research
Published
2012
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
117
ISSN
1465-9921 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128242805
Cited by
252
References
6
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Clinical use of exhaled volatile organic compounds in pulmonary diseases: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1465-9921-13-117
The paper
van de Kant, K. D., van der Sande, L. J., Jöbsis, Q., van Schayck, O. C., & Dompeling, E. (2012). Clinical use of exhaled volatile organic compounds in pulmonary diseases: a systematic review. Respiratory Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-13-117

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.