A semi-blinded study comparing 2 methods of measuring nasal potential difference: Subcutaneous needle versus dermal abrasion

Elke De Wachter, I De Schutter, A Meulemans, R Buyl, A Malfroot

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to European and US protocols, two nasal potential difference (NPD) measurement methods are considered acceptable, although they have not been formally compared: subcutaneous agar-filled needle with calomel (Ndl) and dermal abrasion with conducting cream and Ag/AgCl electrodes (Abr). We compared both in CF and healthy volunteers (HV), assessing their discriminative value and subject's preference.

METHODS: Twelve classic CF and 17 HV underwent both NPD methods, performed by one operator in random order. A written questionnaire, assessing preference, was completed after each test. Tracings were coded, scored in a semi-blinded fashion and categorised as CF/non-CF.

RESULTS: 110 tracings (56 Ndl/54 Abr) were collected: 42/110 scored CF and 68/110 non-CF, showing a good correlation. No significant preference for either method was reported.

CONCLUSION: Both NPD methods are similar in terms of discriminative value and subject's preference, comparing classical CF and HV. For diagnosing CF, the operator's preferred NPD-method may be used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)60-66
Number of pages7
JournalJ Cyst Fibros
Volume15
Issue number1
Early online date16 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016

Keywords

  • CF diagnosis
  • dermal abrasion method
  • nasal potential difference measurements
  • needle method

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A semi-blinded study comparing 2 methods of measuring nasal potential difference: Subcutaneous needle versus dermal abrasion'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this