ABSTRACT
A high quality end-expiratory breath sample is required for a reliable GI breath test result. Oxygen (O2) concentration in the breath sample can be used as a quality marker. This study investigated the characteristics of oxygen concentration in breath sample and the issues with using a correction factor in real-time breath test. The results indicated 95.4% of 564 patients were able to achieve an O2 concentration below 14% in their end-expiratory breath. A further 293 samples were studied and revealed that the distribution of O2 concentration was between 16.5% and 9.5%. Applying a correction factor to predict the end-expiratory H2 and CH4 values led to an average error of −36.4% and −12.8% respectively. The correction factor algorithm based on limiting O2 at 14% would have resulted in false negative result for 50% of the positive cases. This study has also indicated the continuous O2 measurement is essential to ensure breath sample quality by preventing secondary breathing during real-time breath collection.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The clinical data is publicly available.
Funding Statement
The authors received no external funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data used in this study is openly available to the public, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the United Kingdom.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The number of individual samples studied increased from 228 to 293. The increased number of samples is now similar to the proportion of positive cases to a 3-year average at the same centre. Figure 3, 4 and 5 are updated to reflect the increased samples. Figure 6a, 6b, 7a and 7b are removed as it showed repeated information. The percentage of cases where it would have been recognised as false negative cases when Correction Factor is applied is 50%. A new graph added (Figure 7b) showing a typical false negative case from methane.
Data Availability
All data used in this study is openly available to the public, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the United Kingdom. The source data can be accessed via the web page of the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust. The specific address is provided in the section: Data Availability Links.
