Hsui Yang Wong1, Muniswary Subramaniyan1, Chris Bullen2, A N Amer Siddiq1, Mahmoud Danaee3, Anne Yee1. 1. Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Malaya Center of Addiction Sciences (UMCAS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2. National Institute for Health Innovation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The mobile-phone-based Bedfont iCOTM Smokerlyzer® is of unknown validity and reproducibility compared to the widely-used piCO+ Smokerlyzer®. We aimed to compare the validity and reproducibility of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® with the piCO+ Smokerlyzer® among patients reducing or quitting tobacco smoking. METHODS: Methadone-maintained therapy (MMT) users from three centers in Malaysia had their exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels recorded via the piCO+ and iCOTM Smokerlyzers®, their nicotine dependence assessed with the Malay version of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND-M), and daily tobacco intake measured via the Opiate Treatment Index (OTI) Tobacco Q-score. Pearson partial correlations were used to compare the eCO results of both devices, as well as the corresponding FTND-M scores. RESULTS: Among the 146 participants (mean age 47.9 years, 92.5% male, and 73.3% Malay ethnic group) most (55.5%) were moderate smokers (6-19 cigarettes/day). Mean eCO categories were significantly correlated between both devices (r=0.861, p<0.001), and the first and second readings were significantly correlated for each device (r=0.94 for the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001; r=0.91 for the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001). Exhaled CO correlated positively with FTND-M scores for both devices. The post hoc analysis revealed a significantly lower iCOTM Smokerlyzer® reading of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.69-0.94, p<0.001) compared to that of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, and a significant intercept of -0.34 (95% CI: -0.61 - -0.07, p=0.016) on linear regression analysis, suggesting that there may be a calibration error in one or more of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® devices. CONCLUSIONS: The iCOTM Smokerlyzer® readings are highly reproducible compared to those of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, but calibration guidelines are required for the mobile-phone-based device. Further research is required to assess interchangeability.
INTRODUCTION: The mobile-phone-based Bedfont iCOTM Smokerlyzer® is of unknown validity and reproducibility compared to the widely-used piCO+ Smokerlyzer®. We aimed to compare the validity and reproducibility of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® with the piCO+ Smokerlyzer® among patients reducing or quitting tobacco smoking. METHODS:Methadone-maintained therapy (MMT) users from three centers in Malaysia had their exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels recorded via the piCO+ and iCOTM Smokerlyzers®, their nicotine dependence assessed with the Malay version of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND-M), and daily tobacco intake measured via the Opiate Treatment Index (OTI) Tobacco Q-score. Pearson partial correlations were used to compare the eCO results of both devices, as well as the corresponding FTND-M scores. RESULTS: Among the 146 participants (mean age 47.9 years, 92.5% male, and 73.3% Malay ethnic group) most (55.5%) were moderate smokers (6-19 cigarettes/day). Mean eCO categories were significantly correlated between both devices (r=0.861, p<0.001), and the first and second readings were significantly correlated for each device (r=0.94 for the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001; r=0.91 for the iCOTM Smokerlyzer®, p<0.001). Exhaled CO correlated positively with FTND-M scores for both devices. The post hoc analysis revealed a significantly lower iCOTM Smokerlyzer® reading of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.69-0.94, p<0.001) compared to that of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, and a significant intercept of -0.34 (95% CI: -0.61 - -0.07, p=0.016) on linear regression analysis, suggesting that there may be a calibration error in one or more of the iCOTM Smokerlyzer® devices. CONCLUSIONS: The iCOTM Smokerlyzer® readings are highly reproducible compared to those of the piCO+ Smokerlyzer®, but calibration guidelines are required for the mobile-phone-based device. Further research is required to assess interchangeability.
Authors: Joseph Guydish; Emma Passalacqua; Barbara Tajima; Mable Chan; Jongserl Chun; Alan Bostrom Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Steven E Meredith; Andrew Robinson; Philip Erb; Claire A Spieler; Noah Klugman; Prabal Dutta; Jesse Dallery Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Breanna M Tuck; Joshua L Karelitz; Rachel L Tomko; Jennifer Dahne; Patrick Cato; Erin A McClure Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Allison N Kurti; Katherine Tang; Hypatia A Bolivar; Carolyn Evemy; Norman Medina; Joan Skelly; Tyler Nighbor; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Louise Thornton; Bridie Osman; Katrina Champion; Olivia Green; Annie B Wescott; Lauren A Gardner; Courtney Stewart; Rachel Visontay; Jesse Whife; Belinda Parmenter; Louise Birrell; Zachary Bryant; Cath Chapman; David Lubans; Tim Slade; John Torous; Maree Teesson; Pepijn Van de Ven Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Sydney A Martinez; Samantha L Quaife; Afsheen Hasan; Kathryn A McMillan; Laura A Beebe; Fiona Muirhead Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-06-11