Mobile, Remote, and Individual Focused: Comparing Breath Carbon Monoxide Readings and Abstinence Between Smartphone-Enabled and Stand-Alone Monitors
Mobile, Remote, and Individual Focused: Comparing Breath Carbon Monoxide Readings and Abstinence Between Smartphone-Enabled and Stand-Alone Monitors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ntr/ntaa203
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
McClure, Erin A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tuck, Breanna M.;Karelitz, Joshua L.;McClure, Erin A.
简介：新推出的支持智能手机的一氧化碳 (CO) 监测仪比传统的独立监测仪成本更低，代表了吸烟研究的显着进步。新产品前景广阔，但需要数据来比较智能手机监测仪和独立监测仪之间的呼吸 CO 读数。本研究的目的是 (1) 确定移动 iCO (Bedfont Scientific Ltd) 与同一制造商的另外两台监测仪（Micro(+) pro 和 Micro(+) basic）之间的一致性，以及 (2) 确定最佳的、监测仪特定的、经可替宁确认的戒断值。方法：成人 (>= 18) 吸烟者 (n = 26) 和非吸烟者 (n = 21) 提供了三个呼吸 CO 样本（使用三个不同的监测仪）每 10 个疗程，并测量尿液可替宁，以作为戒断判断的金标准。使用基于回归的 Bland-Altman 一致性分析对 CO 比较 (N = 437) 进行分析；接受者操作特征曲线用于确定最佳戒断截止值。结果：Bland-Altman 分析表明，iCO 监测仪比两种 Micro(+) 监测仪提供更高的 CO 结果。敏感性和特异性分析表明，确定戒断的最佳 CO 截止值是
Introduction: Newly available, smartphone-enabled carbon monoxide (CO) monitors are lower in cost than traditional stand-alone monitors and represent a marked advancement for smoking research. New products are promising, but data are needed to compare breath CO readings between smartphone-enabled and stand-alone monitors. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the agreement between the mobile iCO (Bedfont Scientific Ltd) with two other monitors from the same manufacturer (Micro(+) pro and Micro(+) basic) and (2) determine optimal, monitor-specific, cotinine-confirmed abstinence cutoff values.Methods: Adult (>= 18) smokers (n = 26) and nonsmokers (n = 21) provided three breath CO samples (using three different monitors) in each of 10 sessions, and urine cotinine was measured for gold standard determination of abstinence. CO comparisons (N = 437) were analyzed using regression-based Bland-Altman Analysis of Agreement; receiver operating characteristics curves were used to determine optimal abstinence cutoffs.Results: Bland-Altman analyses indicated that the iCO monitor provided higher CO results than both Micro(+) monitors. Sensitivity and specificity analyses showed that the optimal CO cutoff for determining abstinence was