BACKGROUND: Exhaled carbon monoxide (CO(Exh)) measurement is used to confirm smoking status in smoking cessation programs, but the cut-off level is still a matter for discussion. The objective of this study was to compare CO(Exh) levels in smokers and non-smokers to validate the method in a Brazilian population and to estimate the probability of the patient still smoking according to different cut-off points. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we studied non-atopic Caucasian volunteers with no respiratory infection or steroid therapy in the preceding four weeks. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy; breast feeding; age<18 and >65 years old; and subjects not signing informed consent. Participants filled out a questionnaire and had their CO(Exh) levels measured. Bayes' theorem was used to calculate the posttest probabilities. RESULTS: We included 393 subjects of whom 239 (61%) were smokers. The mean CO(Exh) was 14.7 +/- 9.4 ppm and 4.3 +/- 2.5 ppm (p<0.001) in smokers and nonsmokers, respectively. Patients with CO(Exh) below 8 ppm had a likelihood ratio below 1 of still smoking. The levels 9 ppm and 10 ppm provided likelihood ratios of 1.50 and 1.93, respectively. Better discriminant power was obtained at >11 ppm, when the likelihood ratio became 63.80 (95%CI 16.1-253.1). CONCLUSIONS: In smoking cessation practice, a likelihood ratio approach may be useful to determine the probability that an individual is still smoking according to various CO(Exh) cut-off points instead of using a fixed value for all patients.
BACKGROUND: Exhaled carbon monoxide (CO(Exh)) measurement is used to confirm smoking status in smoking cessation programs, but the cut-off level is still a matter for discussion. The objective of this study was to compare CO(Exh) levels in smokers and non-smokers to validate the method in a Brazilian population and to estimate the probability of the patient still smoking according to different cut-off points. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we studied non-atopic Caucasian volunteers with no respiratory infection or steroid therapy in the preceding four weeks. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy; breast feeding; age<18 and >65 years old; and subjects not signing informed consent. Participants filled out a questionnaire and had their CO(Exh) levels measured. Bayes' theorem was used to calculate the posttest probabilities. RESULTS: We included 393 subjects of whom 239 (61%) were smokers. The mean CO(Exh) was 14.7 +/- 9.4 ppm and 4.3 +/- 2.5 ppm (p<0.001) in smokers and nonsmokers, respectively. Patients with CO(Exh) below 8 ppm had a likelihood ratio below 1 of still smoking. The levels 9 ppm and 10 ppm provided likelihood ratios of 1.50 and 1.93, respectively. Better discriminant power was obtained at >11 ppm, when the likelihood ratio became 63.80 (95%CI 16.1-253.1). CONCLUSIONS: In smoking cessation practice, a likelihood ratio approach may be useful to determine the probability that an individual is still smoking according to various CO(Exh) cut-off points instead of using a fixed value for all patients.
Authors: Daisy G Y Thompson-Lake; Kim N Cooper; James J Mahoney; Patrick S Bordnick; Ramiro Salas; Thomas R Kosten; John A Dani; Richard De La Garza Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Thomas F Northrup; Angela L Stotts; Robert Suchting; Amir M Khan; Charles Green; Michelle R Klawans; Penelope J E Quintana; Eunha Hoh; Melbourne F Hovell; Georg E Matt Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David J Maclaren; Katherine M Conigrave; Jan A Robertson; Rowena G Ivers; Sandra Eades; Alan R Clough Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2010-02-20
Authors: Julia de B Machado; V M Plínio Filho; Guilherme O Petersen; José M Chatkin Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Franco Cavaliere; Carmen Volpe; Riccardo Gargaruti; Andrea Poscia; Michele Di Donato; Giovanni Grieco; Umberto Moscato Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Berthold Langguth; Verena Hund; Volker Busch; Tim P Jürgens; Jose-Miguel Lainez; Michael Landgrebe; Martin Schecklmann Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 3.411