Accuracy of breath test for diabetes mellitus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The review aimed to investigate the accuracy of breath tests in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, identify exhaled volatile organic compounds with the most evidence as potential biomarkers, and summarize prospects and challenges in diabetic breath tests. Databases including Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index Expanded were searched. Human studies describing diabetic breath analysis with more than 10 subjects as controls and patients were included. Population demographics, breath test conditions, biomarkers, analytical techniques and diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Quality assessment was performed with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy and a modified QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). Forty-four research with 2699 patients with diabetes were included for qualitative data analysis and 14 eligible studies were used for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of type 2 diabetes breath test exhibited sensitivity of 91.8% (95% CI 83.6% to 96.1%), specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 88.4% to 94.7%) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Isotopic carbon dioxide (CO2) showed the best diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity of 0.949 (95% CI 0.870 to 0.981), specificity of 0.946 (95% CI 0.891 to 0.975) and AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). As the most widely reported biomarker, acetone showed moderate diagnostic accuracy with pooled sensitivity of 0.638 (95% CI 0.511 to 0.748), specificity of 0.801 (95% CI 0.691 to 0.878) and AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.82). Our results indicate that breath test is a promising approach with acceptable diagnostic accuracy for diabetes mellitus and isotopic CO2 is the optimal breath biomarker. Even so, further validation and standardization in subject control, breath sampling and analysis are still required.

Breath acetone concentration: too heterogeneous to constitute a diagnosis or prognosis biomarker in heart failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In this study, ROC analysis showed an excellent discriminative property, with an AUC > 0.90 [66], for an ExA cutoff = 496 ppbv. This diagnosis accuracy in HF was largely higher that the moderate diagnosis accuracy reported in diabetes (AUC = 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.82) [67]). Yet, it was not assessed in intent-to-diagnose population study, because from the 235 HF outpatients screened, 89 were finally included.…”

Artificial Neural Processing‐Driven Bioelectronic Nose for the Diagnosis of Diabetes and Its Complications

“…In general, most studies on diabetes diagnosis rely on breath analysis of human subjects by using machine learning systems, achieving an accuracy of over 90% in distinguishing healthy individuals and patients. [ 21 ] However, the sensor platforms in previous studies mainly utilize semiconductor sensors with low response and high‐temperature requirements. Furthermore, gas samples from cells, organs, and mice contain considerably less gas volume than human breath samples.…”

VOCs from Exhaled Breath for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

“…Another source of acetone is the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme, which reversibly converts isopropyl alcohol to acetone via an oxidation-reduction reaction [31]. This interaction implies that acetone is directly correlated to isopropyl alcohol and these two VOCs usually co-exist [11,31,32]. These two VOCs are associated with cellular metabolic dysregulation.…”