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

Abstract

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
Volume25
Issue number10
Early online date25 Mar 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2019

Fingerprint

Electronic Nose
Confidence Intervals
Wounds and Injuries
Wound Infection
Infection

Keywords

  • Complex wounds
  • diagnostics
  • electronic nose
  • headspace analysis
  • wound infection

Cite this

@article{9b82e7cc15fc4189b953817fb6d07129,
title = "Differentiation between infected and non-infected wounds using an electronic nose",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Complex wounds, diagnostics, electronic nose, headspace analysis, wound infection",
author = "M. Haalboom and Gerritsen, {J. W.} and {van der Palen}, J.",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.018",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1288.e1--1288.e6",
journal = "Clinical microbiology and infection",
issn = "1198-743X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

Differentiation between infected and non-infected wounds using an electronic nose. / Haalboom, M. (Corresponding Author); Gerritsen, J. W.; van der Palen, J.

In: Clinical microbiology and infection, Vol. 25, No. 10, 01.10.2019, p. 1288.e1-1288.e6.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differentiation between infected and non-infected wounds using an electronic nose

AU - Haalboom, M.

AU - Gerritsen, J. W.

AU - van der Palen, J.

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Complex wounds

KW - diagnostics

KW - electronic nose

KW - headspace analysis

KW - wound infection

U2 - 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.018

DO - 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 30922929

AN - SCOPUS:85064405057

VL - 25

SP - 1288.e1-1288.e6

JO - Clinical microbiology and infection

JF - Clinical microbiology and infection

SN - 1198-743X

IS - 10

ER -