Differentiation between infected and non-infected wounds using an electronic nose

M. Haalboom* (Corresponding Author), J.W. Gerritsen, J. van der Palen

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    11 Citations (Scopus)


    Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore whether an electronic nose, Aetholab, is able to discriminate between infected versus non-infected wounds, based on headspace analyses from wound swabs. Methods: A total of 77 patients participated in this pilot study. Each wound was assessed for infection based on clinical judgment. Additionally, two wound swabs were taken, one for microbiological culture and one for measurement with Aetholab. Diagnostic properties with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) of Aetholab were calculated with clinical judgment and microbiological culture results as reference standards. Results: With clinical judgment as reference standard, Aetholab had a sensitivity of 91% (95%CI 76–98) and a specificity of 71% (95%CI 55–84). Diagnostic properties were somewhat lower when microbiological culture results were used as reference standard: sensitivity 81% (95%CI 64–91), specificity 63% (95%CI 46–77). Conclusions: Aetholab seems a promising diagnostic tool for wound infection given the diagnostic properties presented in this pilot study. A larger study is needed to confirm our results.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1288.e1-1288.e6
    JournalClinical microbiology and infection
    Issue number10
    Early online date25 Mar 2019
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2019


    • Complex wounds
    • Diagnostics
    • Electronic nose
    • Headspace analysis
    • Wound infection
    • n/a OA procedure


    Dive into the research topics of 'Differentiation between infected and non-infected wounds using an electronic nose'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this