| Title |
Exhaled breath analysis: a review of ‘breath-taking’ methods for off-line analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Metabolomics, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11306-017-1241-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oluwasola Lawal, Waqar M. Ahmed, Tamara M. E. Nijsen, Royston Goodacre, Stephen J. Fowler |
| Abstract |
The potential of exhaled breath sampling and analysis has long attracted interest in the areas of medical diagnosis and disease monitoring. This interest is attributed to its non-invasive nature, access to an unlimited sample supply (i.e., breath), and the potential to facilitate a rapid at patient diagnosis. However, progress from laboratory setting to routine clinical practice has been slow. Different methodologies of breath sampling, and the consequent difficulty in comparing and combining data, are considered to be a major contributor to this. To fulfil the potential of breath analysis within clinical and pre-clinical medicine, standardisation of some approaches to breath sampling and analysis will be beneficial. The aim of this review is to investigate the heterogeneity of breath sampling methods by performing an in depth bibliometric search to identify the current state of art in the area. In addition, the review will discuss and critique various breath sampling methods for off-line breath analysis. Literature search was carried out in databases MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, INSPEC, COMPENDEX, PQSCITECH, and SCISEARCH using the STN platform which delivers peer-reviewed articles. Keywords searched for include breath, sampling, collection, pre-concentration, volatile. Forward and reverse search was then performed on initially included articles. The breath collection methodologies of all included articles was subsequently reviewed. Sampling methods differs between research groups, for example regarding the portion of breath being targeted. Definition of late expiratory breath varies between studies. Breath analysis is an interdisciplinary field of study using clinical, analytical chemistry, data processing, and metabolomics expertise. A move towards standardisation in breath sampling is currently being promoted within the breath research community with a view to harmonising analysis and thereby increasing robustness and inter-laboratory comparisons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 405 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 405 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 18% |
| Researcher | 55 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 55 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 11% |
| Unknown | 114 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 65 | 16% |
| Engineering | 55 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 66 | 16% |
| Unknown | 141 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,591,492
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Metabolomics
#54
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,221
of 322,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Metabolomics
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.