PICADAR vs. Nasal Nitric Oxide: A Comparative Analysis of PCD Diagnostic Tools for Research and Clinical Development

Abstract

This article provides a critical analysis of two primary screening tools for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD): the PICADAR clinical prediction rule and nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational principles, methodological applications, and performance limitations of each tool based on current literature. The review highlights that PICADAR demonstrates variable sensitivity (61-95%), particularly lower in cases without laterality defects, while nNO, though a valuable objective measure, shows reduced sensitivity in PCD subtypes with normal ciliary ultrastructure. The content synthesizes evidence on optimizing diagnostic pathways, discusses the synergistic use of these tools, and identifies key gaps for future biomarker and therapeutic development in this heterogeneous genetic disorder.

Understanding the Core Technologies: PICADAR as a Clinical Rule vs. nNO as a Biophysical Measure

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by abnormal ciliary function, leading to chronic respiratory symptoms. Diagnosis is challenging due to non-specific symptoms and the requirement for highly specialized, expensive diagnostic tests typically available only at specialist centers. To address this challenge, Behan et al. developed PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule), a diagnostic predictive tool to help clinicians identify patients who warrant referral for definitive PCD testing [1] [2]. This clinical prediction rule utilizes easily obtainable patient history information to estimate the probability of PCD, potentially facilitating earlier diagnosis without overburdening specialized services.

The diagnostic landscape for PCD lacks a single gold standard test, with European guidelines recommending confirmation in specialist centers using a combination of approaches including transmission electron microscopy, ciliary beat pattern analysis, and nasal nitric oxide measurement [2]. These tests require expensive infrastructure and experienced personnel, creating barriers to timely diagnosis, particularly in regions with limited healthcare resources. PICADAR emerged as a simple, cost-effective solution to improve patient selection for specialized diagnostics, especially in settings where nasal nitric oxide measurement is unavailable [1] [2].

Composition and Scoring System of the PICADAR Tool

The PICADAR tool is designed for patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven clinically accessible parameters derived from patient history. Each parameter is assigned a point value based on its regression coefficient from the original logistic regression analysis, with the total score determining the probability of PCD [1].

The Seven Predictive Parameters and Scoring Values

The PICADAR score is calculated by summing points assigned for the following clinical features [1]:

• Full-term gestation (1 point): Defined as birth at or after 37 weeks of gestation.
• Neonatal chest symptoms (2 points): Respiratory distress or other chest symptoms present in the neonatal period.
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission (2 points): Requirement for special care baby unit admission after birth.
• Chronic rhinitis (1 point): Persistent nasal inflammation lasting more than three months.
• Ear symptoms (1 point): History of otitis media or other chronic ear symptoms.
• Situs inversus (4 points): Complete reversal of normal organ positioning.
• Congenital cardiac defect (2 points): Any structural heart defect present at birth.

Interpretation of PICADAR Scores

The total PICADAR score ranges from 0 to 13 points, with higher scores indicating greater probability of PCD. In the original validation study, a cut-off score of 5 points demonstrated optimal diagnostic performance, with sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 [1]. This means that 90% of true PCD cases were correctly identified (sensitivity), while 75% of non-PCD cases were correctly excluded (specificity) using this threshold. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.91 in the internal validation and 0.87 in external validation, indicating good to excellent diagnostic discrimination [1] [2].

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring System and Interpretation

Clinical Parameter	Points Assigned
Full-term gestation	1
Neonatal chest symptoms	2
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	2
Chronic rhinitis	1
Ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	4
Congenital cardiac defect	2
Total Score Interpretation	Probability of PCD
<5 points	Low probability
≥5 points	High probability

Original Validation Methodology and Performance

Study Population and Design

The original PICADAR validation study employed a rigorous methodological approach [1] [2]. The derivation cohort included 641 consecutive patients referred for PCD testing at University Hospital Southampton (UHS) between 2007 and 2013. Of these, 75 (12%) received a positive PCD diagnosis, while 566 (88%) were negative. The researchers collected data using a standardized proforma completed during clinical interviews prior to diagnostic testing, ensuring blinded assessment.

External validation was performed using a sample of 187 patients from Royal Brompton Hospital (RBH), with a similar protocol but including a higher proportion of PCD-positive patients (93 PCD-positive and 94 PCD-negative) to facilitate robust statistical analysis [1] [2]. The validation cohort differed from the derivation cohort in age distribution and ethnic background, allowing assessment of the tool's generalizability.

Diagnostic Reference Standard

PCD diagnosis was confirmed using a combination of tests following UK guidelines [2]. A positive diagnosis typically required a characteristic clinical history plus at least two abnormal diagnostic tests, including hallmark transmission electron microscopy findings, characteristic ciliary beat patterns, or nasal nitric oxide levels ≤30 nL/min. In some cases with strong clinical phenotypes or affected siblings, diagnosis was based on either hallmark ultrastructural defects or repeated high-speed video microscopy analyses consistent with PCD [2].

Statistical Analysis and Model Development

The researchers analyzed 27 potential predictor variables using logistic regression analysis [2]. Predictors were restricted to information readily available in non-specialist settings. Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with AUC values interpreted as follows: 0.6-0.8 indicating moderate discrimination and >0.8 indicating good discrimination. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test evaluated model calibration, with p-values <0.05 indicating poor agreement between predicted probabilities and actual outcomes [2].

Table 2: Original Validation Performance Metrics of PICADAR

Performance Measure	Derivation Cohort	External Validation Cohort
Number of Patients	641	187
PCD Prevalence	12% (75/641)	50% (93/187)
Area Under Curve (AUC)	0.91	0.87
Sensitivity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.90	Not reported
Specificity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.75	Not reported
Positive Predictive Value	Not reported	Not reported
Negative Predictive Value	Not reported	Not reported

Comparison with Nasal Nitric Oxide Testing

Performance of Individual Modalities

Nasal nitric oxide measurement serves as an established screening tool for PCD, with significantly reduced nNO levels (typically <30 nL/min) strongly suggestive of the condition [2]. In direct comparisons, PICADAR alone demonstrated sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.95, while nNO measurement at a threshold of 77 nL/min showed sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.82 [3]. The combination of both modalities has been shown to improve screening performance, with simultaneous testing using nNO (100 nL/min threshold) and PICADAR achieving 100% sensitivity and 70% specificity [3].

Complementary Roles in Diagnostic Pathways

PICADAR and nNO measurement play complementary roles in PCD diagnosis. PICADAR offers advantages as an inexpensive, rapidly applicable tool that requires no specialized equipment, making it particularly valuable in primary and secondary care settings [1]. In contrast, nNO measurement provides an objective physiological measure but requires expensive equipment and technical expertise [2] [4]. For adult bronchiectasis populations, a modified PICADAR score with a lower threshold (≥2 points) has demonstrated sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 when combined with nNO measurement [4].

Table 3: Comparison of PICADAR and Nasal Nitric Oxide Testing

Characteristic	PICADAR	Nasal Nitric Oxide
Basis	Clinical parameters	Biochemical measurement
Equipment Required	None	Chemiluminescence analyzer
Technical Expertise Required	Low	High
Cost	Low	High
Sensitivity	0.88-0.90	0.91-1.00
Specificity	0.75-0.95	0.73-0.95
Best Performance	With laterality defects	With hallmark ultrastructural defects
Limitations	Lower sensitivity in situs solitus	False negatives in certain genotypes

Limitations and Contemporary Research

Recognized Limitations of PICADAR

Recent evidence has highlighted important limitations of PICADAR. A 2025 study by Schramm et al. evaluating 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients found an overall sensitivity of only 75%, significantly lower than originally reported [5] [6]. The tool performed particularly poorly in patients without laterality defects (sensitivity 61%) and those without hallmark ultrastructural defects (sensitivity 59%) [5]. Importantly, PICADAR automatically excludes patients without daily wet cough, which accounted for 7% of genetically confirmed PCD cases in the recent study [5].

Ethnic variations also affect PICADAR's performance. A Japanese study found that only 25% of PCD patients exhibited situs inversus, contrasting with the approximately 50% rate in Western populations, potentially reducing PICADAR's sensitivity in these populations [7]. This difference reflects variations in prevalent genetic mutations across ethnic groups.

Integration into Contemporary Diagnostic Pathways

Despite its limitations, PICADAR remains valuable as an initial screening tool in non-specialist settings. The European Respiratory Society guidelines continue to recommend PICADAR for estimating PCD likelihood before specialist referral [5]. However, contemporary research suggests it should be used cautiously as the sole determinant for referral, particularly in patients with normal situs or atypical presentations [6].

The tool's performance varies across patient subgroups, with excellent sensitivity (95%) in patients with laterality defects but suboptimal performance in those with situs solitus [5]. This underscores the need for complementary diagnostic approaches, especially for patients with PCD variants associated with normal organ arrangement.

Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Key Reagents for PCD Diagnostic Research

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in PCD Research
Transmission Electron Microscope	Visualization of ciliary ultrastructural defects
High-Speed Video Microscope	Analysis of ciliary beat pattern and frequency
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	Measurement of nasal nitric oxide levels
Cell Culture Media	Air-liquid interface culture for ciliary differentiation
Genetic Sequencing Platforms	Identification of pathogenic mutations in PCD genes
Antibodies for Immunofluorescence	Detection of ciliary protein localization and expression

Experimental Workflow for PCD Diagnostic Studies

The following diagram illustrates a typical diagnostic workflow for PCD, showing how PICADAR fits into the broader diagnostic pathway:

PCD Diagnostic Workflow Integration

The PICADAR rule represents an important contribution to PCD diagnostics, providing a validated clinical prediction tool that improves patient selection for specialized testing. Its seven-item scoring system based on readily available clinical history demonstrates good discriminatory power, particularly when used in combination with nasal nitric oxide measurement. However, emerging evidence of its limitations, including reduced sensitivity in patients without laterality defects or daily wet cough, necessitates cautious application and consideration of complementary diagnostic approaches. For researchers and clinicians, PICADAR remains a valuable component of a comprehensive diagnostic strategy for this genetically heterogeneous disorder, though continued refinement of predictive tools is warranted to address its recognized limitations.

Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) has emerged as a critical biomarker in respiratory medicine, particularly for diagnosing primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD). This objective comparison guide examines nNO testing alongside the PICADAR clinical prediction tool, two fundamental approaches for identifying patients who require definitive PCD testing. We analyze the physiological basis of nNO production, standardized measurement protocols, diagnostic performance characteristics, and practical implementation considerations based on current clinical research. For researchers and drug development professionals, this guide provides synthesized experimental data and methodological frameworks to inform diagnostic strategy development and future research directions in PCD diagnostics.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder of motile cilia function that results in abnormal mucociliary clearance [8]. Patients typically present with neonatal respiratory distress, year-round wet cough and nasal congestion beginning in infancy, chronic otitis media, and recurrent lower respiratory infections that often lead to bronchiectasis [8]. Approximately 50% of patients exhibit situs inversus totalis (Kartagener syndrome), while a smaller percentage have heterotaxy syndromes with congenital heart defects [2]. The estimated prevalence ranges from 1:2,000 to 1:40,000, though underdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis remain significant problems due to the nonspecific nature of symptoms and limited access to specialized diagnostic facilities [2].

The diagnostic odyssey for PCD poses substantial challenges for clinicians and researchers alike. Definitive diagnostic tests require highly specialized equipment and expertise, including transmission electron microscopy, genetic testing, high-speed video microscopy analysis, and immunofluorescence microscopy [9]. These tests are typically available only at specialized reference centers, creating significant barriers to access. This diagnostic complexity has driven the development and validation of accessible screening tools—particularly nNO measurement and the PICADAR clinical prediction rule—to identify high-risk patients who warrant referral for comprehensive testing.

Physiological Basis of Nasal Nitric Oxide

Production and Regulation

Nitric oxide (NO) is an important signaling molecule produced throughout the human body that regulates diverse physiological and cellular processes [8]. Within the respiratory tract, NO concentrations in the nasal passages are typically 10-100 times higher than those in the lower airways [8]. The paranasal sinuses serve as the major production site and reservoir for nasal NO, with concentrations reaching up to 9,000 parts per billion (ppb) in these cavities—approximately two to three orders of magnitude higher than in the lower airways [10].

NO production occurs through a reaction involving substrates (arginine, oxygen, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) and cofactors catalyzed by NO synthases (NOS) [8]. Although the specific isoforms responsible for sinus NO production continue to be investigated, the sustained high concentrations suggest specialized regulatory mechanisms within the sinus epithelium.

Sinus Contribution and Transport Dynamics

Computational fluid dynamics modeling based on individual CT scans has revealed unexpected insights into NO flux dynamics. Contrary to historical assumptions that the maxillary sinuses (the largest sinuses) dominate NO emission, recent evidence indicates that the ethmoid sinuses contribute more than 67% of total nasal NO emission, with all other sinuses combined contributing less than 33% [10]. Additionally, diffusive transport rather than convective air movement appears to be the dominant mechanism, accounting for more than 70% of NO emission from the sinuses to the nasal cavity [10].

The following diagram illustrates the pathway of nitric oxide production and transport from the paranasal sinuses to the nasal cavity:

(Caption: Physiology of nasal nitric oxide production and transport)

The ostiomeatal complex, with an average length of 6 mm and diameter of 1-5 mm, serves as the critical anatomical pathway connecting the sinuses to the nasal cavity [10]. The narrow dimensions of these ostia likely influence NO flux dynamics and may contribute to the characteristically low nNO values observed in conditions causing sinus inflammation or obstruction.

nNO Measurement Methodologies

Standardized Measurement Protocols

The accurate measurement of nNO requires strict adherence to standardized protocols to ensure reliable and reproducible results. The technical standard operating procedures endorsed by the PCD Foundation Clinical and Research Centers Network specify several critical methodological considerations [8]:

• Patient Selection: nNO measurement is recommended for cooperative patients aged 5 years and older with appropriate clinical phenotypes for PCD. Testing in children younger than 5 years is less reliable due to frequently overlapping values with healthy controls and the influence of external factors [8].

• Testing Maneuvers: The standardized protocol involves sampling during breath-holding while the patient blows against resistance, which closes the velum and prevents contamination from lower airway NO [8]. For children who cannot perform this maneuver, tidal breathing measurements may be used as an alternative approach.

• Equipment Requirements: Chemiluminescence analyzers represent the gold-standard technology, as they provide immediate, highly sensitive, and specific measurement of NO gas even at extremely low concentrations (parts per billion) through the reaction: NO + O₃ → NOâ‚‚ + Oâ‚‚ + light [8]. The intensity of emitted light is directly proportional to NO concentration.

• Quality Control: Repeat nNO testing on separate visits at least 2 weeks apart is strongly recommended to ensure that low diagnostic values are persistent and not due to transient factors such as occult viral infections [8].

Technological Approaches

Two primary technologies are available for nNO measurement, each with distinct characteristics and applications:

Table 1: Comparison of nNO Measurement Technologies

Parameter	Chemiluminescence Analyzers	Electrochemical Devices
Measurement Principle	Reaction of NO with ozone produces light measured by photodetector	Electrochemical sensor detects current generated by NO oxidation
Measurement Time	3 seconds for valid measurement [9]	≥15-30 seconds sampling time required [9]
Cost	$30,000-$50,000 USD [8]	Approximately €3,000 (≈$3,200 USD) [9]
Regulatory Status	Approved for clinical use in Europe; research use in North America [8]	FDA-approved for FeNO in asthma but not for nNO measurement [8]
Validation in PCD	Extensive validation in robust clinical studies [8]	Limited data, especially in children <5 years [9]
Use in Young Children	Feasible with tidal breathing method [8]	Challenging due to required sampling time [9]

A novel approach for measuring nNO in young children using electrochemical devices during laryngeal mask ventilation (ECnNO LAMA) has shown promising results in preliminary studies, demonstrating substantial intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC 0.974) and making electrochemical measurement feasible in children under 5 years of age [9].

The following workflow illustrates the standardized nNO measurement process:

(Caption: Standardized nNO measurement workflow)

PICADAR Clinical Prediction Tool

Development and Validation

The PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) score was developed as a practical clinical diagnostic tool to identify patients requiring specialized PCD testing [2]. Derived through logistic regression analysis of consecutive patients referred for PCD diagnostics, the tool incorporates seven readily available clinical parameters without requiring specialized equipment or technical expertise.

The validation study involved 641 consecutive referrals with definitive diagnostic outcomes, of which 75 (12%) were diagnosed with PCD [2]. External validation was performed in a second diagnostic center with 187 patients (93 PCD-positive and 94 PCD-negative), confirming the tool's discriminative ability with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 in the external population [2].

Scoring System and Interpretation

The PICADAR score assigns points based on specific clinical features present in the patient's history:

Table 2: PICADAR Scoring System [2]

Clinical Parameter	Points
Full-term gestation	2
Neonatal chest symptoms	2
Neonatal intensive care admission	1
Chronic rhinitis	1
Ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	2
Congenital cardiac defect	2
Total Possible Score	11

The diagnostic performance of PICADAR varies according to the selected cutoff score. In the derivation cohort, a cutoff score of 5 points demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 for PCD diagnosis [2]. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.91 in the internal validation and 0.87 in the external validation population, indicating good diagnostic accuracy [2].

A modified PICADAR score has also been evaluated in adults with bronchiectasis, demonstrating significant discriminative value with a cutoff score of 2 points showing sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 for identifying PCD in this specific population [4].

Diagnostic Performance Comparison

Head-to-Head Diagnostic Accuracy

Direct comparison studies between nNO measurement and PICADAR score provide insights into their relative strengths and limitations for PCD identification:

Table 3: Diagnostic Performance Comparison of nNO and PICADAR

Parameter	nNO Measurement	PICADAR Score
Sensitivity	0.94-0.95 (at <77 nl/min) [3]	0.88-0.90 (at >5 points) [3] [2]
Specificity	0.82 (at <77 nl/min) [3]	0.75-0.95 (at >5 points) [3] [2]
Optimal Cutoff	<77 nl/min [4]	>5 points [2]
Positive Predictive Value	High in appropriate clinical phenotype [8]	Moderate to high depending on prevalence [2]
Negative Predictive Value	High [9]	High [2]
Age Limitations	Limited under age 5 [8]	Applicable to all ages [2]
Required Resources	Specialized equipment, trained personnel [8]	Clinical history only [2]

Combined Testing Approach

Research demonstrates that combining nNO measurement with PICADAR score enhances diagnostic accuracy beyond either method alone. In a prospective study of 142 consecutive referrals for PCD diagnostics, the combination of PICADAR score >5 or nNO below various thresholds significantly improved sensitivity [3]:

• Using nNO <100 nl/min with PICADAR achieved 100% sensitivity and 0.73 specificity
• Using nNO <77 nl/min with PICADAR achieved 0.94 sensitivity and 0.78 specificity
• Using nNO <30 nl/min with PICADAR achieved 0.94 sensitivity and 0.89 specificity

This synergistic effect demonstrates the complementary value of both approaches, with the combination particularly effective for ruling out PCD when both tests are negative.

The following diagram illustrates the diagnostic pathway integrating both PICADAR and nNO:

(Caption: Integrated PCD diagnostic pathway)

Pathophysiological Mechanisms in PCD

The profoundly low nNO levels characteristic of PCD result from multiple interconnected pathophysiological mechanisms. While initial hypotheses focused solely on sinus ostia obstruction from thick mucus, evidence now suggests more complex mechanisms [11]. The case of unilateral PCD-like symptoms following severe sinusitis provides compelling insights—despite patent surgical ostia, the side with injured or absent ciliated epithelium demonstrated significantly reduced nNO (37 ± 1.2 nL/min difference compared to the healthy side) [11]. This indicates that functional ciliated epithelium itself is essential for normal nNO production, not merely patent sinus drainage pathways.

Additionally, computational modeling suggests that the ethmoid sinuses contribute disproportionately (>67%) to total nasal NO emission compared to other sinuses [10]. The complex architecture of the ethmoid sinuses with their multiple small air cells may be particularly susceptible to the functional and anatomical abnormalities in PCD, potentially explaining the characteristically low nNO measurements.

The paradoxical finding of low nNO in PCD despite normal or increased NO synthase expression suggests possible defects in enzyme activity, substrate availability, or cofactor function [8]. Some investigations into arginine and tetrahydrobiopterin (cofactor) supplementation to influence NO concentrations have not produced clinically beneficial results or substantial changes in nNO concentrations in vivo [8].

Research Applications and Methodological Considerations

The Scientist's Toolkit

For researchers designing studies involving nNO measurement or PCD diagnostics, the following essential materials and methodologies represent current best practices:

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Methodologies

Tool/Reagent	Specification	Research Application
Chemiluminescence Analyzer	CLD88 (Eco Physics) or NOA series	Gold-standard nNO measurement [8]
Nasal Olive or Probe	Disposable, airtight seal	Ensures isolated nasal air sampling [8]
Nose Clip	Standard pulmonary function testing	Prevents nasal air leakage during measurement [8]
Mouthpiece with Resistance	Fixed resistance ~1-2 cm Hâ‚‚O/(L/s)	Velum closure during breath-hold maneuver [8]
Calibration Gas	Certified NO concentrations	Daily device calibration per manufacturer guidelines [8]
Clinical History Protocol	Structured interview questionnaire	Standardized PICADAR data collection [2]
Data Collection Form	Electronic or paper case report forms	Comprehensive clinical and nNO data capture [2]
Roquefortine E	Roquefortine E, CAS:871982-52-4, MF:C27H31N5O2, MW:457.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Glucobrassicanapin	Glucobrassicanapin, MF:C12H21NO9S2, MW:387.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Special Population Considerations

Pediatric Applications: nNO measurement in children under age 5 presents special challenges. While chemiluminescence analyzers can obtain valid measurements in 3 seconds during tidal breathing, electrochemical devices require longer sampling times (≥15-30 seconds) that are difficult to achieve in young children [9]. The novel ECnNO LAMA technique (electrochemical measurement during laryngeal mask ventilation) has shown promising repeatability and precision (ICC 0.974) in children under 5 years, potentially expanding nNO screening to younger populations [9].

Ethnic and Genetic Considerations: The clinical presentation of PCD varies across populations, potentially affecting prediction rule performance. In Japanese patients, for example, situs inversus occurs in only 25% of PCD cases compared to approximately 50% in Western populations, reflecting differences in major disease-causing genes [7]. This variability underscores the importance of validating both nNO cutoffs and clinical prediction rules in diverse populations.

Nasal nitric oxide measurement and the PICADAR score represent complementary approaches for identifying patients with high probability of primary ciliary dyskinesia. nNO offers superior diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% when performed with standardized techniques in appropriate populations, while PICADAR provides an accessible, cost-effective screening tool that requires no specialized equipment.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the integrated application of both methods maximizes diagnostic sensitivity while optimizing resource utilization. The combination of PICADAR score >5 or nNO <100 nl/min achieves 100% sensitivity, effectively ruling out PCD when both tests are negative [3]. This stratified approach enables efficient referral for definitive diagnostic testing while minimizing missed diagnoses.

Future research directions include validating modified nNO measurement techniques for young children, refining clinical prediction rules for specific subpopulations, and elucidating the precise pathophysiological mechanisms linking ciliary dysfunction to low nNO production. Additionally, the development of more accessible and cost-effective nNO measurement technologies may eventually overcome current limitations in widespread implementation.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder of motile cilia function characterized by oto-sino-pulmonary disease and laterality defects. Diagnosis remains challenging due to the extensive genetic and ultrastructural heterogeneity of the disease, which complicates the interpretation of any single diagnostic test. This review evaluates two key screening tools—the PICADAR clinical prediction rule and nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement—within the context of this complexity. We synthesize current evidence on the performance characteristics of these tools, detail standardized testing protocols, and present a structured comparison of their operational parameters. The analysis confirms that both PICADAR and nNO serve as valuable, complementary components in a sequential diagnostic workflow, effectively selecting patients for definitive testing while acknowledging the limitations imposed by PCD's multifaceted nature.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder characterized by impaired motile cilia function, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary infections, bronchiectasis, and in approximately 50% of cases, situs inversus totalis [12]. The diagnostic journey for PCD is notoriously challenging, often marked by significant delays due to the non-specificity of clinical symptoms and the technical complexity of confirmatory testing. The genetic architecture of PCD exhibits remarkable locus heterogeneity, with over 40 identified disease-causing genes, and allelic heterogeneity, with numerous pathogenic variants identified within each gene [13] [14]. This genetic diversity underlies an equally diverse array of ultrastructural defects observed via electron microscopy (EM), including missing outer or inner dynein arms, radial spoke defects, and microtubular disorganization [12].

Historically, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis of ciliary ultrastructure served as the diagnostic "gold standard." However, this approach has significant limitations. Even in specialized centers, samples from children are inadequate for interpretation 40% of the time, and inner dynein arm analysis is particularly prone to artifact [12]. Furthermore, normal ciliary ultrastructure does not exclude PCD, as demonstrated by patients with disease-causing mutations in genes like DNAH11 who exhibit classic clinical features, low nNO, and subtle ciliary beat pattern abnormalities despite normal EM [12]. The estimated minimum global prevalence of PCD is at least 1 in 7,554 individuals, with variation across ethnicities—it is more common in individuals of African ancestry (1 in 9,906) compared to non-Finnish European (1 in 10,388) or East Asian (1 in 14,606) populations [15] [13]. This evolving epidemiological understanding, coupled with diagnostic complexities, underscores the critical need for accessible and reliable screening tools to guide subsequent specialized testing.

Evaluating the Screening Tools: PICADAR and Nasal NO

In response to the diagnostic challenges, two primary screening modalities have emerged: the PICADAR clinical prediction rule and nasal nitric oxide measurement. These tools aim to identify high-risk patients efficiently before proceeding to more invasive, expensive, and specialized confirmatory tests.

PICADAR: A Clinical Prediction Rule

The PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule (PICADAR) is a validated clinical scoring system designed to quantify the pre-test probability of PCD based on patient history and clinical features [16]. It operationalizes key clinical indicators into a points-based system.

Experimental Protocol for PICADAR Application:

• Data Collection: The score is calculated retrospectively or prospectively from the patient's medical history. It assesses seven clinical variables: situs abnormality, gestational age, neonatal chest symptoms, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), congenital cardiac defects, chronic rhinitis, and chronic ear/sinus symptoms [16] [3].
• Scoring: Each variable is assigned a specific point value. The points are summed to generate a total PICADAR score.
• Interpretation: A score above a predetermined cut-off (typically >5 points in its original validation) indicates a high probability of PCD and warrants referral for definitive diagnostic testing [3].

Nasal Nitric Oxide: A Biomarker-Based Assay

Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement is a biochemical test that leverages the well-replicated finding that patients with PCD have markedly low levels of nasal NO. The pathophysiological basis for this deficiency is linked to impaired NO production or flux across the ciliated epithelium [12] [4].

Experimental Protocol for nNO Measurement:

• Equipment: nNO is measured using an electrochemical analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino or Niox Vero) [16].
• Patient Preparation: The test is performed in patients free of acute respiratory illness, as infections can transiently lower nNO. Patients must be old enough to cooperate (typically >3-5 years) and must avoid nasal breathing during measurement.
• Technique: A nasal olive probe is inserted into one nostril, creating a tight seal. Nasal air is passively aspirated at a constant flow rate (e.g., 5 mL/s or 0.3 L/min) while the patient breathes orally against resistance or during breath-hold to close the velum [16].
• Interpretation: The nNO concentration is displayed in parts per billion (ppb) or nanoliters per minute (nL/min). A value below a validated threshold (e.g., 77 nL/min in one study of adults with bronchiectasis) is highly suggestive of PCD [4].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Direct comparison of PICADAR and nNO reveals distinct performance characteristics, strengths, and limitations for each tool, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of PICADAR and Nasal NO

Parameter	PICADAR	Nasal NO (nNO)
Fundamental Principle	Clinical prediction rule based on symptom history [16] [3]	Measurement of a biochemical biomarker [12] [4]
Key Performance Metrics	Sensitivity: 0.88, Specificity: 0.95 (score >5) [3]	Sensitivity: 0.94, Specificity: 0.82 (cut-off 77 nL/min) [4]
Optimal Cut-off Value	>5 points (original validation) [3]	<77 nL/min (in adult bronchiectasis) [4]
Key Advantages	Non-invasive, low-cost, requires no specialized equipment, can be applied based on history alone [16]	Objective quantitative measure, high negative predictive value, useful for patients without classic history [4] [3]
Major Limitations	Relies on accurate and available patient history (e.g., neonatal details), less useful in adults with poor recall [16]	Requires patient cooperation (unsuitable for young children), results confounded by acute illness, technical standardization needed [12] [16]
Impact of PCD Heterogeneity	May miss patients with atypical or mild clinical presentations not captured by the score variables [16]	Generally low across most genetic forms, though levels can vary; remains a robust screening tool despite heterogeneity [12]

The synergistic combination of these tools enhances overall diagnostic accuracy. Research demonstrates that using PICADAR in parallel with nNO measurement (where a positive screen is defined by either a PICADAR score >5 or an nNO value below a set threshold) significantly improves sensitivity. For instance, using an nNO threshold of 100 nL/min in combination with PICADAR achieved a sensitivity of 1.00 and a negative predictive value of 100%, ensuring no PCD cases were missed at the screening stage [3]. Another study on adults with bronchiectasis found that a modified PICADAR score of ≥2 had a sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89, and when combined with low nNO, provided a highly effective screening algorithm [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Advancing the diagnostic field for PCD requires a specific set of reagents and methodologies. Table 2 outlines key materials and their applications in PCD research and diagnostics.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Investigation

Reagent / Material	Primary Function in PCD Research/Diagnostics
Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)	Visualizes the ultrastructural architecture of ciliary axonemes (e.g., 9+2 microtubule arrangement, dynein arms) to identify hallmark defects [12].
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVM) System	Captures and analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern, identifying specific dyskinetic movements associated with different ultrastructural defects [12] [16].
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzer	Measures low nasal NO concentrations, a key screening biomarker for PCD. Standardized equipment (e.g., Niox Mino/Vero) is essential for comparable results [4] [16].
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Targets known PCD-associated genes for genetic confirmation. Comprehensive panels are crucial due to extreme genetic heterogeneity [15] [16] [13].
Cell Culture Media for Ciliated Epithelium	Supports the regeneration of ciliated epithelial cells from nasal brush biopsies, reducing secondary damage and allowing for more accurate ciliary functional and ultrastructural analysis [12].
Immunofluorescence (IF) Antibodies	Labels specific ciliary proteins (e.g., dynein components) to infer ultrastructural defects when TEM is inconclusive or normal in genetically confirmed cases [17].
Neurosporene	Neurosporene, CAS:502-64-7, MF:C40H58, MW:538.9 g/mol
Eupatolitin	Eupatolitin, CAS:29536-44-5, MF:C17H14O8, MW:346.3 g/mol

Integrated Diagnostic Workflow

The diagnostic pathway for PCD is multi-staged, beginning with clinical suspicion and proceeding through sequential testing. The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow integrating the tools discussed, from initial screening to definitive diagnosis.

The diagnostic odyssey for PCD, set against a backdrop of significant genetic and ultrastructural heterogeneity, necessitates a robust, multi-step screening strategy. Both the PICADAR clinical score and nNO measurement have proven to be effective initial tools, each with distinct advantages. PICADAR offers an inexpensive, history-based first pass, while nNO provides an objective physiological measurement. Their combined use maximizes sensitivity for identifying true PCD cases requiring definitive confirmation through advanced techniques like HSVM, TEM, and genetic testing in specialized centers. Future efforts must focus on standardizing these protocols globally and expanding genetic databases to encompass diverse populations, thereby ensuring equitable and accurate diagnosis for all patients with this complex disorder.

Triage and Screening in the Multi-Step PCD Diagnostic Algorithm

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disease affecting approximately 1 in 10,000 people, though true prevalence is likely higher due to underdiagnosis [18]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, as no single gold standard test exists, and confirmatory testing requires specialized equipment and expertise available only at specialized centers [18] [19]. This diagnostic challenge has driven the development of accessible screening tools to identify high-risk patients who should be referred for definitive testing. Two key approaches have emerged: the PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) clinical prediction tool and nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement [4] [16]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these triage methods for researchers and clinicians designing diagnostic studies or implementing screening protocols.

Performance Comparison of Screening Tools

The following tables summarize the operating characteristics, practical requirements, and performance data of PICADAR and nNO measurement as PCD screening tools.

Table 1: Operational Characteristics of PCD Screening Tools

Characteristic	PICADAR	Nasal NO Measurement
Basis of Test	Clinical scoring system	Biochemical measurement
Data Required	7 clinical items from history and examination	nNO concentration in nasal air
Equipment Needed	None (paper-based)	nNO analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino/Vero)
Technical Expertise Required	Low	Moderate to high
Patient Cooperation Needed	Minimal	Moderate (requires specific breathing maneuvers)
Age Limitations	Can be applied to all ages with available history	Limited utility in children <3-5 years
Cost	Very low	High (equipment and consumables)

Table 2: Performance Characteristics from Validation Studies

Performance Measure	PICADAR	Nasal NO
Optimal Cut-off	Score ≥2 [4]	<77 nL/min [4]
Reported Sensitivity	1.00 [4]	0.97-0.98 [19]
Reported Specificity	0.89 [4]	0.95-0.98 [19]
Area Under ROC Curve (AUC)	0.87 (in direct comparison) [16]	Enhanced performance when combined with clinical tools [16]
Positive Predictive Value in High-Prevalence Setting	~44% when pre-test probability is 10% [18]	Similar to PICADAR in referral populations

Table 3: Advantages and Limitations for Research Applications

Consideration	PICADAR	Nasal NO Measurement
Screening Implementation	Easy, rapid, low-cost	Requires specialized equipment and training
Multicenter Studies	Highly consistent across sites	Requires equipment standardization
Objective Measure	No (based on patient recall/report)	Yes (quantitative output)
Impact of Current Respiratory Symptoms	Minimal	Significant (requires deferral until asymptomatic)
Use in Young Children	Applicable with available history	Challenging under age 5

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

PICADAR Scoring Protocol

The PICADAR tool is calculated using seven clinical criteria with assigned points [4] [16]:

• Data Collection: Gather information on:

  • Gestational age at birth (term = 0 points; preterm <37 weeks = 1 point)
  • Neonatal chest symptoms (no = 0 points; yes = 1 point)
  • Neonatal intensive care unit admission (no = 0 points; yes = 1 point)
  • Situs inversus (no = 0 points; yes = 2 points)
  • Congenital heart disease (no = 0 points; yes = 2 points)
  • Persistent perennial rhinitis (no = 0 points; yes = 1 point)
  • Chronic ear/sinus symptoms (no = 0 points; yes = 1 point)

• Score Calculation: Sum all points. The original validation established a cutoff of ≥5 points for high PCD probability, though subsequent studies have suggested a modified cutoff of ≥2 points may improve sensitivity [4].

• Application Note: This tool was specifically developed and validated in patients with chronic wet cough [16].

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement Protocol

Standardized nNO measurement follows the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society technical standards [19] [16]:

• Patient Preparation:

  • Testing should be performed when patients are free of acute respiratory symptoms for at least 2-4 weeks
  • Avoid caffeine, food, and exercise for at least 1 hour before testing
  • Confirm absence of acute upper respiratory infection

• Measurement Technique:

  • Use an electrochemical analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino, Aerocrine AB, Solna, Sweden)
  • Position patient in sitting position with head in neutral position
  • Apply nasal olive probe to one nostril with airtight seal
  • Use passive sampling flow rate of 5 mL/s (~0.3 L/min)
  • Employ velum closure maneuvers (oral exhalation against resistance) to isolate nasal cavity
  • Record steady-state nNO concentration in parts per billion (ppb)

• Quality Control:

  • Perform calibration according to manufacturer specifications
  • Ensure stable plateau reading for at least 3 seconds
  • Repeat measurement if inconsistent values are obtained

Integrated Screening Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for implementing PCD screening in a research or clinical setting, integrating both PICADAR and nNO tools based on patient age and symptoms:

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 4: Essential Materials for PCD Screening Research

Item	Specification/Example	Research Application
nNO Analyzer	Niox Mino/Vero (Circassia)	Standardized nNO measurement in clinical studies
Nasal Olive Probes	Disposable probes of various sizes	Ensure proper seal during nNO sampling
Clinical Data Collection Form	Structured form with PICADAR criteria	Standardized data collection across research sites
Spirometry System	Clario SpiroSphere or equivalent	Rule out other respiratory conditions (e.g., asthma)
Data Management Platform	Centralized system (e.g., Clario EXPERT)	Ensure data uniformity and accessibility in multicenter trials
Quality Control Materials	Calibration gases for nNO analyzers	Maintain measurement accuracy across study sites
Patient Questionnaires	Validated respiratory symptom instruments	Supplement PICADAR with detailed symptom data

Discussion and Research Implications

The combination of PICADAR and nNO measurement provides a powerful screening approach that leverages both clinical features and biochemical measurement. Recent research demonstrates that integrating these tools enhances predictive power compared to either method alone [16]. For research applications, PICADAR offers particular utility in pediatric populations and resource-limited settings, while nNO provides an objective, quantitative measure that is less susceptible to recall bias.

Future directions in PCD screening include the development of artificial intelligence tools for automated analysis of ciliary function [20] and genetic screening panels that may eventually become cost-effective for first-line testing. For now, the combination of a validated clinical prediction rule like PICADAR with nNO measurement represents the optimal approach for identifying patients who should undergo invasive and expensive definitive testing with transmission electron microscopy, genetic testing, or high-speed video microscopy [18] [19].

Operationalizing PCD Screening: Protocols for PICADAR and nNO in Research and Clinical Settings

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder impairing mucociliary clearance, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary symptoms. Diagnosis remains challenging due to the complexity and limited availability of definitive tests like transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and genetic testing. The PICADAR score (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) emerges as a vital clinical prediction tool designed to identify patients with high PCD probability before advanced testing. This guide details PICADAR administration, juxtaposes its performance with Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement, and summarizes supporting experimental data to inform researcher and clinician practice.

PICADAR Score: Components and Calculation

The PICADAR score is a validated, evidence-based tool that uses seven routinely available clinical parameters to estimate PCD probability. Its application is reserved for patients with a persistent wet cough, a core symptom of the disease [2] [21].

Data Collection and Question Interpretation

The seven predictive parameters, their definitions, and associated points are detailed in the table below. Accurate data collection, often via clinical interview before diagnostic testing, is crucial for reliable scoring [2].

Table 1: The PICADAR Score Parameters and Point Allocation

#	Parameter	Question Interpretation / Clinical Definition	Points Assigned
1	Full-term gestation	Was the infant born at or after 37 weeks of gestation?	2
2	Neonatal chest symptoms	Did the newborn experience unexplained respiratory distress, tachypnea, or require oxygen?	2
3	Neonatal intensive care unit admission	Was the infant admitted to a special care baby unit or NICU?	1
4	Chronic rhinitis	Does the patient have persistent, perennial (year-round) nasal congestion/rhinitis?	1
5	Ear symptoms	Does the patient have a history of chronic otitis media or hearing problems?	1
6	Situs inversus	Has medical imaging confirmed the heart and organs are on the opposite side?	2
7	Congenital cardiac defect	Is there a confirmed structural heart defect at birth (excluding patent foramen ovale)?	2
		Total Possible Score	11

Score Calculation and Diagnostic Thresholds

Sum the points from all applicable parameters. The total score stratifies patients according to their risk of having PCD.

Table 2: PICADAR Score Interpretation and Diagnostic Accuracy

Total PICADAR Score	Probability of PCD	Recommended Action	Sensitivity	Specificity
≤4 points	Low	PCD is unlikely; consider alternative diagnoses.	-	-
5 points	Intermediate	Refer for further PCD testing.	0.90	0.75
≥6 points	High	Strongly refer for definitive PCD testing.	-	-

The original validation study reported an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.91 upon internal validation and 0.87 upon external validation, indicating excellent and good discriminative ability, respectively [2].

Experimental Protocols and Validation Studies

Original Derivation and Validation Protocol

The PICADAR tool was developed through a rigorous methodology [2]:

• Study Population: 641 consecutive patients referred to a PCD diagnostic center.
• Data Collection: A proforma was used to collect patient data through clinical interviews prior to any diagnostic testing.
• Statistical Analysis: Logistic regression identified the seven significant predictors. Regression coefficients were rounded to the nearest integer to create the practical score.
• Validation: The model was internally validated and externally tested on a separate cohort of 187 patients from a different diagnostic center.

Comparative Performance Against Other Screening Tools

A 2024 diagnostic accuracy study compared PICADAR against other clinical tools, including the North American Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF) and the Clinical Index (CI) score [22].

Table 3: Comparative Performance of PCD Screening Tools (2024 Study)

Screening Tool	Median Score (Confirmed PCD)	Median Score (Non-PCD)	Area Under Curve (AUC)	p-value
PICADAR	9.00	6.00	0.847	<0.001
NA-CDCF	3.00	2.00	0.736	<0.001
CI Score	6.00	3.00	0.898	<0.001

This study found that while all tools were effective, the CI score demonstrated the largest AUC, outperforming PICADAR and NA-CDCF in that specific cohort [22].

PICADAR vs. Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Testing

Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement is another established screening method for PCD. A comparison of these two primary screening approaches is essential for clinical and research decision-making.

Direct Comparative Data

Several studies have directly or indirectly compared the utility of PICADAR and nNO.

• Sensitivity and Specificity: In its original validation, PICADAR showed a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 at a cut-off of 5 points [2]. nNO measurement, when performed with a standardized resistor technique, demonstrates higher performance, with a reported sensitivity of 0.96 and specificity of 0.96 at a cut-off of ≤77 nL/min [23].
• Utility in Adults: A 2017 study in adults with bronchiectasis used a modified PICADAR score. They found a score of ≥2 had a sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 for discriminating PCD, while an nNO level of ≤77 nL/min was also highly discriminative [4].
• Real-World Clinical Application: A 2024 case series demonstrated nNO's practical utility. When nNO was used as the first test, 75% of patients had a single above-cutoff value, making PCD unlikely and preventing further confirmatory testing in 91% of those cases. The genetic testing positivity rate was 50% when nNO was performed first versus 8% when genetic testing was the initial test [23]. This highlights nNO's power in triaging patients efficiently.

Advantages and Limitations

Table 4: Comparison of Key Characteristics: PICADAR vs. nNO

Characteristic	PICADAR Score	nNO Measurement
Basis	Clinical history and symptoms	Biochemical measurement
Equipment Needed	None (paper form)	Chemiluminescence analyzer (~$20,000)
Required Expertise	Clinical interview skills	Trained technicians
Patient Cooperation	Minimal (from historian)	Moderate to high (requires velum closure)
Age Limitations	None	Challenging in children <5 years old
Cost	Very low	High (equipment and maintenance)
Accessibility	High, in any clinical setting	Low, restricted to specialized centers
Affected by Acute Illness	No	Yes, values can be low during infections

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers designing studies on PCD diagnostics, the following tools and reagents are fundamental.

Table 5: Key Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Research

Item	Function / Application in Research	Notes
Clinical History Proforma	Standardized data collection for PICADAR parameters.	Ensures consistent and reproducible history-taking across study sites [2].
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	Gold-standard device for measuring nNO levels.	Critical for nNO studies; must be used with resistor technique for cooperative patients ≥5 years old [21] [23].
Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)	Visualizes ciliary ultrastructure for definitive diagnosis.	Used as a confirmatory test; requires expert interpretation. Can have non-diagnostic results in ~30% of PCD cases [24] [23].
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Genetic testing for >50 known PCD-associated genes.	A key confirmatory test. Current panels have an estimated ~70% diagnostic yield [24] [23].
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVA)	Analyzes ciliary beat pattern and frequency.	A specialized functional test performed in reference centers to assess ciliary motility [24].
(-)-Lavandulol	(-)-Lavandulol, CAS:498-16-8, MF:C10H18O, MW:154.25 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
17-hydroxyjolkinolide A	17-hydroxyjolkinolide A, MF:C20H26O4, MW:330.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The PICADAR score is a highly accessible, validated, and effective first-line screening tool for PCD, leveraging easily obtainable clinical data. Its strength lies in identifying which patients should be referred for more complex, expensive, and less available definitive tests. In contrast, nNO measurement offers higher diagnostic accuracy as a screening test but is constrained by cost, equipment needs, and technical demands. The choice between these tools—or their sequential use in a diagnostic algorithm—depends on the clinical or research context, available resources, and patient population. As affirmed by a 2024 study, both tools play a crucial role in streamlining the diagnostic pathway for this rare disease, ultimately promoting earlier diagnosis and improved patient management [22] [23].

Within the diagnostic work-up for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD), the measurement of nasal nitric oxide (nNO) serves as a critical, non-invasive screening tool that guides the subsequent use of more complex, confirmatory tests [25]. nNO levels are consistently very low in most patients with PCD, often less than one-tenth the value found in healthy individuals [8]. This characteristic makes nNO measurement a valuable gatekeeper in the diagnostic pathway. The clinical context for this testing is often established by tools like the PICADAR (Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule) score, a predictive tool that uses seven clinical characteristics (e.g., full-term birth, neonatal chest symptoms, situs abnormality) to estimate the probability of PCD [21]. Using nNO measurement in a population first identified by a high PICADAR score significantly improves the positive predictive value of the test, ensuring that resource-intensive confirmatory tests like transmission electron microscopy or genetic testing are used judiciously [21]. This review provides a standardized comparison of nNO measurement techniques, devices, and protocols, contextualized within the broader diagnostic strategy for PCD.

nNO Measurement Techniques: A Comparative Analysis

The technique for measuring nNO is primarily chosen based on the patient's age and ability to cooperate. The fundamental principle involves isolating the high NO concentration of the nasal cavities from the lower airways, a process achieved through velum closure in cooperative patients [25].

Table 1: Comparison of Standard nNO Sampling Maneuvers

Manoeuvre	Principle	Patient Cooperation Required	Recommended Age Group	Advantages	Limitations
Exhalation against Resistance [25] [8]	Velum closure via slow oral exhalation against resistance.	High	≥ 5 years	Considered the gold standard; provides feedback on velum closure; high specificity and reproducibility [26] [25].	Not feasible for young or uncooperative patients.
Breath-Hold [25]	Velum closure via voluntary breath-hold with glottis closure.	Moderate	≥ 5 years	A reliable alternative if exhalation against resistance fails; shows similar repeatability [25].	Requires patient comprehension and ability to perform Valsalva maneuver.
Tidal Breathing [26] [25] [27]	No velum closure; nasal air is sampled during normal breathing.	Low (Minimal)	< 5 years, or unable to perform velum closure	Highly feasible in infants and young children; can be performed during natural sleep [26] [28].	nNO values are lower and more variable due to dilution with lower airway air; less discriminative power [26] [25].

Technical Workflow for Diagnostic nNO Measurement

The following diagram illustrates the standard decision-making pathway for performing nNO measurements, integrating clinical pre-screening and the selection of appropriate techniques based on patient age and cooperation.

Diagram 1: Standardized nNO measurement workflow, from patient identification to result interpretation.

Device Technology: Chemiluminescence vs. Electrochemical Sensors

The accuracy and practicality of nNO measurement are significantly influenced by the type of analyzer used. The two main technologies are chemiluminescence and electrochemical analyzers, each with distinct performance characteristics and roles in clinical practice [25].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of nNO Measurement Devices

Feature	Chemiluminescence Analyzers (e.g., Eco Medics CLD 88sp)	Electrochemical Analyzers (e.g., NIOX VERO, Medisoft FeNO+)
Technology Principle	Reaction of NO with ozone produces light proportional to NO concentration [25].	Chemical reaction between NO and sensing materials (amperometric sensors) [25].
Accuracy & Data Display	High accuracy; provides real-time display of NO curve, allowing for manual plateau selection and validation [25] [8].	Good accuracy; result is often a single output after a fixed sampling time; some models can display a non-real-time curve [25].
Diagnostic Validation	Rigorously tested; most published, validated cut-off values are based on these devices [25] [8].	Limited published validation in PCD diagnosis; device-specific cut-offs are required [27] [29].
Portability & Cost	Less portable; expensive to purchase and maintain [25].	Small, portable, and cost-effective [25].
Feasibility in Infants	100% feasibility for at least one nostril during tidal breathing in natural sleep [26].	Lower feasibility (85.5%) in newborns; requires uninterrupted sampling for a fixed time [26].
Example nNO Output (Controls)	124 nl/min (median, tidal breathing) [27].	136 nl/min (median, tidal breathing) [27].
Example nNO Output (PCD)	7.1 nl/min (median, tidal breathing) [27].	7.9 nl/min (median, tidal breathing) [27].
Recommended Use	Recommended by ERS/ATS as the standard for PCD diagnosis [25] [8].	Can serve as a diagnostic tool if device-specific cut-offs are applied; useful for targeted case-finding [27] [29].

Experimental Protocols and Data Interpretation

Detailed Methodology for nNO Measurement

Adherence to standardized protocols is essential for obtaining reliable nNO results. The following methodology is synthesized from current technical standards [25] [8]:

• Patient Preparation: The procedure is explained to the patient/parents. Patients should blow their nose before testing. nNO measurement must be performed before any nasal brushing or biopsy, as mucosal injury can lead to falsely low values. Testing should be delayed for 2-4 weeks following a respiratory tract infection [25].
• Environmental Calibration: Ambient NO levels should be measured and recorded before each test. If ambient NO is high (>20 ppb), it should be subtracted from all measurements [25] [27].
• Equipment Setup: A synthetic olive is placed tightly in one nostril and connected via a tube to the NO analyzer. The other nostril remains unblocked. The sampling line is checked for possible obstructions [26] [25].
• Measurement Execution:
  • For exhalation against resistance, the patient inhales to total lung capacity and then exhales slowly against a mouth resistor. A stable plateau for ≥3 seconds with ≤10% variation is considered acceptable [25].
  • For tidal breathing, the patient breathes normally through the mouth while air is aspirated from the nose. A minimum of 30 seconds of sampling is typical, with values averaged from stable peaks or plateaus [27] [28].
• Data Collection and Repeatability: Measurements are repeated in each nostril. If results between nostrils differ by more than 10-20%, the measurement is repeated in the nostril with the higher value. The highest value from acceptable measurements is used for analysis [26] [27].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Materials and Equipment for nNO Research

Item	Function/Description	Example Products/Brands
Chemiluminescence Analyzer	Gold-standard device for high-accuracy, real-time nNO measurement; used for validating protocols and establishing reference values.	Eco Medics CLD 88sp [26] [27], Sievers NOA 280i [25]
Electrochemical Analyzer	Portable, cost-effective device for clinical screening and case-finding; requires device-specific cut-off values.	NIOX VERO [30] [27], NIOX MINO [26], Medisoft FeNO+ [29]
Nasal Olive Probes	Disposable or reusable probes that create a tight seal in the nostril for sampling nasal gas.	Synthetic olive with central lumen [26]
Mouth Resistors / Party Blowers	Used to ensure velum closure during the exhalation against resistance manoeuvre.	Party blower (blow-out toy horn taped closed) [25]
Calibration Gases	Certified NO concentration gases used for regular calibration of analyzers to ensure measurement accuracy.	As specified by device manufacturer [8]
Data Analysis Software	Software provided with analyzers or third-party solutions for visualizing NO curves, selecting plateaus, and calculating output.	Device-specific software (e.g., for NIOX VERO, CLD 88sp) [25] [27]
Chaetochromin A	Chaetochromin|Insulin Receptor Agonist|Research Use	Chaetochromin is a selective IR agonist with antidiabetic activity and BoNT/A inhibitory properties. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Helichrysoside	Helichrysoside, MF:C30H26O14, MW:610.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Age-Specific Protocols and Diagnostic Cut-Offs

nNO levels are influenced by age, a critical factor that must be considered when interpreting results. Values in healthy newborns are considerably lower than in older children and increase longitudinally during the first years of life [26] [21].

Table 4: Age-Specific Considerations and Diagnostic Cut-Offs for nNO

Age Group	Recommended Technique	Key Considerations	Reported Cut-Off Values
Newborns (1st week)	Tidal breathing during natural sleep [26].	nNO is very low (median 38 ppb); significant overlap with PCD values; screening is not recommended in this age group [26].	nNO < 100 ppb in first week (non-diagnostic) [26].
Infants & Children (< 5 years)	Tidal breathing [25] [21].	nNO increases with age. Values are lower than in older children. Low nNO should not be a stand-alone diagnostic and should be repeated after age 5 [21] [8].	Age-based formulas are proposed; no universally accepted fixed cut-off [21].
Cooperative Children (≥ 5 years) & Adults	Exhalation against resistance (gold standard) or breath-hold [25] [8].	High diagnostic accuracy when performed with a standardized protocol in a clinically suggestive population. Repeat testing on a separate visit is strongly recommended [8].	< 77 nl/min is >95% sensitive/specific for PCD using chemiluminescence [8]. 42-87 nl/min for tidal breathing, device-dependent [27] [29].

Standardized nNO measurement is a powerful component of the PCD diagnostic pathway. The choice between exhalation against resistance and tidal breathing is decisively guided by patient age and cooperation, with the former being the gold standard for cooperative individuals and the latter enabling screening in young children. While chemiluminescence analyzers provide the most validated data, electrochemical devices show promise for accessible screening if device-specific cut-offs are applied. Critically, nNO results must be interpreted in the context of a suggestive clinical phenotype, such as one identified by the PICADAR tool, to maximize diagnostic accuracy and appropriately guide the use of definitive confirmatory testing.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by abnormal ciliary function, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease, neonatal respiratory distress, and laterality defects in approximately 50% of patients [2]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD presents significant challenges due to the nonspecific nature of its symptoms, which overlap with more common respiratory conditions such as asthma, recurrent bronchitis, and cystic fibrosis. Additionally, definitive diagnostic tests require highly specialized equipment and expertise, typically available only at specialized referral centers [2]. This diagnostic complexity often leads to both underdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis, particularly in regions with limited healthcare resources [2]. To address this critical gap, researchers have developed and validated screening tools that enable better selection of patients for specialized testing. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of two key approaches: the PICADAR clinical prediction rule and nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement.

PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule)

PICADAR is a clinical prediction tool designed to identify patients with a high probability of PCD based on easily obtainable clinical history [2]. It applies to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven clinical parameters: full-term gestation, neonatal chest symptoms, neonatal intensive care unit admission, chronic rhinitis, ear symptoms, situs inversus, and congenital cardiac defect [2]. Each parameter contributes a specific point value to a total score, which predicts the likelihood of PCD.

Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Measurement

Nasal nitric oxide measurement is a biochemical screening test that leverages the well-established phenomenon that patients with PCD have characteristically low nNO levels [4] [31]. The test measures the concentration of NO in nasal air samples, serving as a functional biomarker of ciliary health. Different nNO thresholds have been investigated for their discriminatory power in various patient populations.

Comparative Diagnostic Performance

The table below summarizes the established diagnostic cut-offs and performance metrics for PICADAR and nNO as standalone tests.

Table 1: Diagnostic Thresholds and Performance of Standalone Tests

Diagnostic Tool	Established Cut-off	Sensitivity	Specificity	Area Under Curve (AUC)	Population Validated
PICADAR	≥ 5 points	0.90	0.75	0.91 (internal)0.87 (external)	Consecutive referrals (n=641) [2]
nNO	< 77 nl/min	0.94	0.82	Data not provided	Adults with bronchiectasis [4]
nNO	≤ 30 nl/min	0.91	0.95	Data not provided	Consecutive referrals [31]

Synergistic Application in a Diagnostic Pathway

While each tool is effective independently, research demonstrates that their combination creates a powerful screening strategy. A prospective study of 142 consecutive referrals evaluated the accuracy of using either a PICADAR score >5 or an nNO level below a specified threshold as a positive screen [31]. The results of this simultaneous testing approach are detailed below.

Table 2: Performance of Combined PICADAR and nNO Testing (Simultaneous "OR" Rule)

Combination Strategy	Sensitivity	Specificity	False Positives	False Negatives
PICADAR >5 OR nNO < 77 nl/min	0.94	0.78	25/111	2/33
PICADAR >5 OR nNO ≤ 30 nl/min	0.94	0.89	12/111	2/33
PICADAR >5 OR nNO < 100 nl/min	1.00	0.70	33/111	0/33

The data reveals a key trade-off: increasing the nNO cut-off (e.g., to 100 nl/min) in a combined protocol maximizes sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) to 100%, ensuring no PCD cases are missed, at the cost of a higher false-positive rate [31]. This approach is ideal for the initial screening of broad populations. Conversely, using a very low nNO threshold (e.g., 30 nl/min) yields higher specificity, making it useful for confirming high-probability cases in a secondary check.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

PICADAR Tool Development and Validation

The development of PICADAR followed a rigorous methodology to ensure its validity and generalizability [2].

• Study Population and Data Collection: The derivative cohort consisted of 641 consecutive patients referred for PCD diagnostic testing at the University Hospital Southampton (UHS). Data were collected prospectively using a standardized proforma completed during a clinical interview prior to any diagnostic procedures. Parameters were restricted to those readily available in a non-specialist setting.
• Statistical Analysis and Model Development: Twenty-seven potential clinical variables were analyzed. Univariate analyses (t-tests, Chi-squared tests) identified factors with significant differences between PCD-positive and PCD-negative groups. Significant predictors were then entered into a logistic regression model using forward step-wise methods to develop a simplified prediction tool.
• Score Creation and Validation: The regression coefficients from the final model were rounded to the nearest integer to create the point-based PICADAR score. The tool's discriminative ability was tested via Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. External validation was performed using a separate cohort of 187 patients from the Royal Brompton Hospital (RBH) [2].

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement Protocol

The nNO measurement methodology, while not detailed in the provided results for the comparative studies, is a standardized procedure. The core principle involves measuring the concentration of NO in air sampled directly from the nasal cavity. The following workflow generalizes the process, which can be adapted for different analytical devices.

Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Measurement Workflow

Figure 1: Generalized workflow for measuring nasal nitric oxide (nNO) levels. A critical step is velum closure to prevent contamination from pulmonary NO, which has a much higher concentration.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table outlines key materials and solutions required for conducting research on PCD diagnostics, particularly studies involving nNO measurement and clinical validation.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Experimental Context
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	Precisely quantifies nitric oxide concentration in sampled air by measuring light emitted from the NO-ozone reaction.	Essential hardware for nNO measurement [32] [31].
Nasal Air Sampling Probes	Delivers a continuous, controlled flow of air from the nasal cavity to the analyzer.	Required for consistent nNO data collection.
Standardized NO Calibration Gases	Calibrates the chemiluminescence analyzer to ensure accurate and reproducible nNO readings.	Critical for quality control and inter-study comparison [32].
Clinical History Proforma	Standardized questionnaire for collecting patient data on neonatal history, chronic symptoms, and situs status.	Foundation for calculating the PICADAR score [2].
Diagnostic Reference Standards	Combination of high-speed video microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and genetic testing.	The "gold standard" against which PICADAR and nNO are validated [2].
Virodhamine
Thiotaurine	Thiotaurine, CAS:2937-54-4, MF:C2H7NO2S2, MW:141.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The establishment of diagnostic cut-offs for PICADAR (≥5 points) and nNO (e.g., <77 nl/min) provides the clinical and research communities with validated, quantitative tools to streamline PCD diagnosis. The evidence demonstrates that while both tools are effective as standalone screens, their strategic combination creates a robust, synergistic algorithm. Using a higher nNO threshold (e.g., <100 nl/min) in parallel with PICADAR achieves near-perfect sensitivity, making it an optimal strategy for ruling out PCD in broad referral populations and ensuring that all potential cases are advanced to definitive testing. For drug development professionals and researchers, these tools enable more efficient patient cohort identification for clinical trials and genetic studies. Future research should focus on further validating these thresholds, particularly nNO, across diverse age groups and ethnicities, and on integrating these tools with emerging genetic panels to create a comprehensive, standardized diagnostic pathway for this complex disease.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder caused by defects in the structure and function of motile cilia, leading to impaired mucociliary clearance. The disease presents with hallmark symptoms including unexplained neonatal respiratory distress in term infants, daily wet cough beginning in infancy, persistent perennial rhinitis, chronic otitis media, and laterality defects such as situs inversus [24] [33]. With over 50 known associated genes and no single gold-standard diagnostic test, PCD diagnosis remains challenging and is often significantly delayed [24] [16]. This diagnostic complexity creates a critical need for efficient screening tools that can accurately identify high-risk patients in primary care and general pulmonology settings for referral to specialized centers.

Two key tools have emerged to guide this patient pathway: the PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) clinical prediction rule and nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement. PICADAR is a symptom-based scoring system, while nNO provides a biochemical measure of nasal sinus function. Both are intended to serve as gatekeepers to more complex, expensive, and less-available definitive tests such as genetic testing, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA) [21] [16]. This review objectively compares the performance, methodologies, and integrative application of PICADAR and nNO within the diagnostic pathway for PCD.

Tool Comparison: PICADAR vs. Nasal Nitric Oxide

Performance Characteristics and Diagnostic Accuracy

Direct comparison of PICADAR and nNO reveals distinct performance profiles, with the choice of tool depending on whether sensitivity or specificity is prioritized. The following table summarizes their key characteristics based on clinical validation studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of PICADAR and Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)

Feature	PICADAR	Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)
Tool Type	Clinical prediction rule (symptom-based score) [21]	Biochemical measurement [21]
Primary Function	Patient selection for PCD diagnostics [34]	Screening and diagnostic tool [21]
Key Components	7 clinical items: full-term birth, neonatal chest symptoms, NICU admission, situs abnormality, congenital heart defect, perennial rhinitis, chronic ear/hearing symptoms [21]	Measurement of nNO concentration (nL/min or ppb) [21]
Recommended Cut-off	Score ≥5 points suggests high PCD probability [5]	<77 nL/min for discrimination; <100 nL/min for high sensitivity [4] [34]
Reported Sensitivity	75% (overall); 95% (with laterality defects); 61% (without laterality defects) [5] [35]	91-100% (varies with threshold) [34]
Reported Specificity	95% [34]	73-95% (varies with threshold) [34]
Major Limitations	Misses PCD cases without daily wet cough (7% of genetically confirmed cases) and cases without laterality defects [5]	Requires patient cooperation; values are age-dependent (lower in very young children) [21]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

PICADAR Score Implementation

The PICADAR tool is applied through a structured clinical assessment. Its first step is a gatekeeper question: the presence of a daily wet cough. Patients without this symptom are ruled out for PCD, which is a significant source of false negatives, as 7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients do not report a daily wet cough [5] [35]. For patients with a daily wet cough, seven clinical components are assessed, each contributing a specific point value to a total score [21]. A score of ≥5 points is recommended as the threshold indicating a high probability of PCD and warranting specialist referral [5]. The data collection is typically performed retrospectively from patient interviews and medical records.

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement Protocol

nNO measurement is a technical procedure following American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines [21]. The standard technique for cooperative patients (typically >5 years old) is oral exhalation against resistance, which closes the velum and prevents contamination from lower airway air. The measurement is performed using a chemiluminescence analyzer, which detects NO via its reaction with ozone. The process involves inserting a nasal olive probe into one nostril while the patient exhales orally into a mouthpiece against a fixed resistance. A stable nNO plateau is recorded, and the highest of three measurements is used [21]. For younger or uncooperative patients, tidal breathing or breath-hold techniques can be used, though these may yield more variable results.

Integrated Diagnostic Pathway

The limitations of both PICADAR and nNO when used alone suggest a synergistic effect when they are combined. Research indicates that a sequential or parallel approach significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy for patient selection.

Table 2: Impact of Combining PICADAR and nNO Testing (nNO threshold: 77 nL/min)

Testing Strategy	Sensitivity	Specificity
PICADAR (>5 points) alone [34]	88%	95%
nNO (<77 nL/min) alone [34]	94%	82%
nNO (<77 nL/min) OR PICADAR (>5 points) positive [34]	94%	78%
nNO (<100 nL/min) OR PICADAR (>5 points) positive [34]	100%	70%

The following workflow diagram illustrates a proposed integrated pathway from initial suspicion to specialist referral, leveraging the strengths of both tools to maximize sensitivity.

Integrated PCD Screening Pathway - This diagram illustrates a combined workflow using PICADAR and nNO to maximize sensitivity for specialist referral.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The development and validation of diagnostic tools like PICADAR and nNO, as well as advanced confirmatory testing, rely on a specific set of research reagents and methodologies.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions in PCD Diagnostics

Reagent / Material	Primary Function	Application in PCD Research/Diagnostics
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	Precisely measures nitric oxide concentration via reaction with ozone [21]	Gold-standard device for nNO measurement in diagnostic and validation studies.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	High-throughput mutation detection in >50 known PCD-associated genes [24] [16]	Genetic confirmation of PCD; used as a reference standard in tool validation studies.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	Ultrastructural visualization of ciliary axoneme defects (e.g., ODA, IDA, CP) [24] [16]	A traditional diagnostic standard; used for phenotyping in validation cohorts.
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVM)	Quantitative analysis of ciliary beat frequency and pattern [24] [16]	Functional assessment of ciliary motility; part of the definitive diagnostic workup.
Immunofluorescence (IF) Antibodies	Protein-level detection of missing ciliary components (e.g., DNAH5) [24]	Can confirm specific ultrastructural defects predicted by genetic results.
Elatoside E	Elatoside E, MF:C46H74O16, MW:883.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
cis-melilotoside	cis-Melilotoside|High-Purity Reference Standard	cis-Melilotoside, a cinnamic acid derivative studied for skin-lightening and plant defense. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.

Both PICADAR and nNO are valuable yet imperfect tools for identifying patients with PCD. PICADAR offers the advantage of being a low-cost, purely clinical tool but suffers from significantly variable sensitivity, particularly missing patients who lack classic features like daily wet cough or laterality defects [5] [35]. In contrast, nNO is a highly sensitive objective measure but requires specialized equipment and patient cooperation, and its specificity is not absolute [21] [34].

The current evidence suggests that the most effective patient pathway leverages the strengths of both tools. Using a combination of PICADAR and a raised nNO cut-off (100 nL/min) as parallel tests can achieve a sensitivity of 100%, ensuring that very few true PCD cases are missed during the screening process, albeit with a trade-off in specificity [34]. This integrated approach provides a robust, evidence-based strategy for front-line clinicians to streamline referral to specialized PCD diagnostic centers, ultimately reducing diagnostic delay and improving patient outcomes. Future research should focus on developing and validating new predictive tools that are more sensitive to the full spectrum of PCD presentations, including those with normal body situs and normal ciliary ultrastructure.

Addressing Limitations and Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy for PCD Subtypes

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting motile cilia, leading to chronic otosinopulmonary disease, laterality defects, and fertility issues. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, requiring specialized testing available only at reference centers. To guide referral for definitive testing, clinicians rely on predictive tools that estimate the probability of PCD based on clinical features. The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is one such tool, currently recommended by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines [35] [36]. It utilizes an initial screening question about daily wet cough, followed by seven clinical items to generate a score that determines diagnostic likelihood [35] [21].

However, emerging evidence from a large, genetically confirmed cohort reveals that PICADAR has critical limitations, particularly in specific patient subgroups [35] [5] [6]. This analysis objectively compares PICADAR's performance against nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, highlighting its variable sensitivity and implications for research and clinical practice.

Performance Analysis: Quantitative Limitations of PICADAR

A 2025 study by Schramm et al. evaluated PICADAR's sensitivity in 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD, providing the most comprehensive performance data to date [35] [5] [6]. The findings demonstrate significant limitations in PICADAR's ability to correctly identify patients with PCD.

Table 1: Overall Sensitivity of PICADAR in a Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohort (n=269)

Metric	Value	Implication
Overall Sensitivity	75% (202/269)	One-quarter of genuine PCD cases would be missed
Patients excluded by initial cough screen	7% (18/269)	Automatic exclusion despite genetic confirmation
Median PICADAR Score	7 (IQR: 5-9)	Scores show wide variation among confirmed cases

Subgroup Analysis Reveals Critical Weaknesses

PICADAR's performance varies dramatically across PCD subpopulations, with significantly lower sensitivity in patients without classic laterality defects or those with specific ultrastructural genotypes.

Table 2: PICADAR Sensitivity in Key PCD Subgroups

PCD Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median Score (IQR)	p-value
All Patients (n=269)	75%	7 (5-9)	-
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8-11)	< 0.0001
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4-8)	< 0.0001
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	Not Reported	< 0.0001
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%	Not Reported	< 0.0001

This data indicates that PICADAR fails to identify nearly 40% of PCD patients who have situs solitus or normal ciliary ultrastructure [35] [6]. These subgroups often have mutations in genes associated with normal ultrastructure (e.g., DNAH11) and represent a substantial portion of the PCD population [37] [38] [36].

Comparative Diagnostic Performance: PICADAR vs. Nasal Nitric Oxide

Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement serves as another important screening and diagnostic tool for PCD. The European and American guidelines recommend nNO measurement for its ability to support a PCD diagnosis, as nNO levels are characteristically low in most PCD patients [37] [21]. Comparing the performance of these two approaches reveals complementary strengths and weaknesses.

Table 3: PICADAR vs. Nasal Nitric Oxide for PCD Detection

Characteristic	PICADAR Tool	Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)
Basis of Tool	Clinical history and symptoms (8 items)	Biochemical measurement of nasal NO production
Overall Sensitivity	75% [35]	92% (using 77 nl/min cutoff) [37]
Sensitivity in Normal Ultrastructure	59% [35]	85% [37]
Key Limitation	Relies on presence of "classic" clinical features	Less sensitive for normal ultrastructure subtypes; requires specialized equipment
Optimal Cut-off	≥5 points [35]	77 nl/min (standard); 107.8 nl/min for normal ultrastructure [37]
Practical Application	Quick, inexpensive clinical assessment	Objective physiological measure; requires patient cooperation

Synergistic Use in Screening Algorithms

Research indicates that combining these tools may improve screening efficacy. A 2017 study on adults with bronchiectasis found that using a modified PICADAR score in conjunction with nNO provided an effective screening algorithm, with a modified PICADAR score of ≥2 showing sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 when combined with low nNO [4]. This suggests that while PICADAR alone has limitations, its value increases when used as part of a multi-component screening strategy.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

PICADAR Validation Study Protocol

The seminal 2025 study by Schramm et al. followed a rigorous methodology to evaluate PICADAR [35] [5]:

• Population: 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD from specialized centers.
• PICADAR Assessment: Researchers calculated PICADAR scores retrospectively based on medical records for:
  • Daily wet cough (initial gatekeeping question)
  • Gestational age at birth
  • Neonatal chest symptoms
  • Neonatal intensive care unit admission
  • Situs abnormality
  • Congenital heart defect
  • Persistent perennial rhinitis
  • Chronic ear or hearing symptoms
• Analysis: Sensitivity was calculated as the proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points (the recommended threshold for high PCD probability). Subgroup analyses were performed based on the presence of laterality defects and hallmark ultrastructural defects confirmed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement Protocol

Standard nNO measurement follows established technical guidelines [37] [21]:

• Equipment: Chemiluminescence analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino or Vero).
• Technique:
  • For cooperative patients (typically >5 years): Oral exhalation against resistance with velum closure to prevent lower airway contamination.
  • For less cooperative patients: Tidal breathing or breath-hold techniques.
• Procedure:
  • Nasal air is aspirated via a nasal olive probe inserted into one nostril.
  • A passive sampling flow rate of 5 mL/s is used.
  • Three measurements are taken, with the highest value recorded.
• Unit Conversion: Results in parts per billion can be converted to nL/min [16].

Diagram 1: PCD Diagnostic Screening Pathway. This workflow illustrates the parallel application of PICADAR and nNO measurement, highlighting critical points where sensitivity limitations occur (red boxes). TEM = Transmission Electron Microscopy; HSVM = High-Speed Video Microscopy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Research

Item	Specific Example	Research Application	Technical Notes
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzer	Niox Mino/Vero (Circassia)	Quantification of nNO for screening/diagnosis	Use standardized protocol (oral exhalation vs. resistance); critical cutoff: <77 nl/min [37] [21]
Genetic Testing Panel	Next-generation sequencing panel for >50 PCD genes	Definitive molecular diagnosis	Identifies pathogenic variants; 20-30% of cases have no identified mutation [16] [36]
Transmission Electron Microscope	Standard TEM equipment	Ciliary ultrastructural analysis	Detects hallmark defects (e.g., outer/inner dynein arm defects); normal in ~30% of PCD [38] [36]
High-Speed Video Microscope	Keyence Motion Analyzer	Ciliary beat frequency and pattern analysis	Requires specialized expertise for waveform interpretation [16] [21]
Ciliary Cell Culture Materials	Cytological brushes, culture media	Obtain ciliated epithelium for functional testing	Nasal brushing from inferior turbinate; allows re-differentiation culture [38]

Discussion: Implications for Research and Clinical Practice

The evidence demonstrating PICADAR's limited sensitivity, particularly in key PCD subgroups, has significant implications. For researchers designing clinical studies, relying solely on PICADAR for patient recruitment could systematically exclude approximately 40% of the PCD population—those with situs solitus or normal ultrastructure [35] [6]. This selection bias could profoundly affect genotype-phenotype correlations and therapeutic trial outcomes.

For drug development professionals, these findings underscore that PCD represents a spectrum of disorders with varying clinical presentations. Therapeutic strategies targeting specific genetic defects may be most effective, requiring comprehensive genetic testing beyond phenotypic screening tools [38] [36].

The complementary performance profiles of PICADAR and nNO suggest that an integrated approach is optimal. While PICADAR demonstrates excellent sensitivity (95%) in patients with laterality defects, nNO maintains better overall sensitivity (92%) across the PCD population [35] [37]. However, even nNO shows reduced sensitivity in PCD patients with normal ultrastructure, indicating that neither tool alone is sufficient for comprehensive case identification [37].

Future research should focus on developing next-generation predictive tools that incorporate genetic and ultrastructural data alongside clinical features. Additionally, raising awareness of atypical PCD presentations—without laterality defects or with normal ciliary ultrastructure—is essential for improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing diagnostic delays in this heterogeneous disease.

The diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) presents a significant challenge due to the absence of a single gold standard test and the genetic heterogeneity of the disease, with mutations in over 50 identified genes [24]. In this diagnostic landscape, nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement has emerged as a valuable screening tool, while clinical prediction tools like PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) help identify patients requiring further testing [2] [33]. However, both approaches present critical limitations, particularly for patients with specific genetic subtypes characterized by normal ciliary ultrastructure.

This review objectively compares the performance of nNO measurement against the PICADAR tool within a broader thesis on PCD diagnostic strategies. We examine the variable sensitivity of nNO across genetic variants and explore the need for adjusted diagnostic cut-offs in patients with normal ultrastructure, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a synthesized analysis of current evidence and methodological considerations.

Diagnostic Landscape in PCD: The Role of nNO and PICADAR

The Complexities of PCD Diagnosis

PCD diagnosis relies on a composite approach incorporating multiple tests, as no single test possesses both high sensitivity and specificity [24] [39]. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) strongly recommend using high-speed video microscopy (HSVM), immunofluorescence (IF), and nNO as adjunct tests to transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and/or genetics, while emphasizing that no single adjunct test is suitable for standalone diagnosis [39]. This multifaceted diagnostic requirement stems from the genetic and ultrastructural heterogeneity of PCD, which involves defects in numerous genes encoding proteins essential for ciliary structure and function [24].

PICADAR: A Clinical Prediction Tool

The PICADAR tool was developed to address the challenge of identifying which patients with persistent respiratory symptoms should be referred for specialized PCD testing [2]. This clinical prediction rule incorporates seven easily obtainable clinical parameters:

• Full-term gestation
• Neonatal chest symptoms
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission
• Chronic rhinitis
• Chronic ear symptoms
• Situs inversus
• Congenital cardiac defect

In validation studies, PICADAR demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 at a cut-off score of 5 points, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.91 and 0.87 for internal and external validation, respectively [2].

Nasal Nitric Oxide as a Diagnostic Tool

Nasal NO measurement has been established as an efficient screening method for PCD, typically showing markedly reduced levels in affected individuals [2] [33]. The test is incorporated into diagnostic algorithms, with levels ≤30 nL·min⁻¹ considered suggestive of PCD in the context of a typical clinical phenotype [2]. However, recent evidence indicates this measurement has variable sensitivity across different genetic subtypes of PCD [33].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of PICADAR and nNO Diagnostic Approaches

Feature	PICADAR	Nasal NO Measurement
Type of Tool	Clinical prediction rule	Biochemical measurement
Primary Function	Identify patients for specialist referral	Screening/adjunct diagnostic test
Key Parameters	7 clinical history items	Nitric oxide concentration in nasal air
Typical Cut-off	≥5 points	≤30 nL·min⁻¹
Reported Sensitivity	0.90 (initial validation) [2]	Variable by genotype [33]
Reported Specificity	0.75 (initial validation) [2]	Generally high
Key Limitations	Lower sensitivity without laterality defects [5]	Discrepancies in some genetic variants [33]
Resource Requirements	Low (clinical interview)	High (expensive equipment, trained technicians) [2]

nNO Diagnostic Pitfalls and the Normal Ultrastructure Challenge

Variable Sensitivity Across Genetic Variants

A significant limitation of nNO measurement is its inconsistent performance across different genetic subtypes of PCD. Some genetic variants show notable discrepancies with nNO measurements, potentially leading to false-negative results if nNO is used as a standalone screening tool [33]. This variability is particularly problematic for patients with mutations in genes such as DNAH11, which cause PCD with normal ciliary ultrastructure [24]. In these cases, ciliary motility is impaired despite normal appearance under TEM, and nNO levels may not exhibit the characteristic severe reduction seen in other PCD genotypes.

The Need for Adjusted Diagnostic Cut-offs

The recognition that nNO levels may not be uniformly reduced across all PCD genotypes suggests the need for genotype-specific reference ranges or adjusted cut-off values. Patients with normal ultrastructure PCD may present with nNO values that fall above the traditional diagnostic threshold of ≤30 nL·min⁻¹ while still exhibiting the characteristic clinical phenotype of PCD [33] [24]. This diagnostic pitfall underscores the importance of using nNO as part of a comprehensive testing strategy rather than relying on it as a definitive rule-out test.

Table 2: Genetic Variants with Potential nNO Measurement Discrepancies

Gene	Ultrastructural Defect	Impact on Ciliary Function	Reported nNO Behavior
DNAH11	Normal ultrastructure	Impaired motility	May not be consistently low [24]
HYDIN	Central pair defects	Abnormal beating pattern	Discrepancies reported [33]
RSPH4A	Central pair defects	Swirling, abnormal pattern	Discrepancies reported [33]
GAS8	Microtubule disorganization	Impaired motility	Further investigation needed

Methodological Considerations in Diagnostic Research

Diagnostic Reference Standards

Research evaluating nNO or PICADAR must contend with the absence of a single gold standard for PCD diagnosis. Methodologically sound studies use composite reference standards as recommended by ERS/ATS guidelines, typically incorporating TEM plus genetic testing and/or functional ciliary assessment [39]. Studies should clearly define their diagnostic criteria and acknowledge the potential for misclassification bias when the reference standard itself is imperfect.

Technical Standardization of nNO Measurement

nNO measurement protocols require careful standardization to ensure reproducible results. Key methodological considerations include:

• Sampling technique: Velum closure techniques versus passive exhalation
• Flow rate: Strict control of sampling flow rates
• Equipment calibration: Regular calibration using certified standards
• Patient factors: Exclusion of current upper respiratory infection, appropriate nasal cavity selection
• Age-adjusted values: Development of pediatric reference ranges

Failure to control these variables introduces significant measurement error and limits the comparability of results across research studies.

Validation of Clinical Prediction Tools

The evaluation of PICADAR demonstrates methodological requirements for clinical prediction tools, including initial derivation followed by external validation in distinct populations [2] [5]. Recent validation studies have highlighted important limitations, showing significantly reduced sensitivity (61%) in patients with situs solitus (normal organ placement) compared to those with laterality defects (95%) [5]. This underscores the need for ongoing validation across diverse patient populations and genetic subtypes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application in PCD Research
Nasal epithelial brush	Obtain ciliated cell samples	Harvesting respiratory epithelium for HSVM, TEM, cell culture
Electron microscopy fixatives	(e.g., glutaraldehyde)	Preserve ciliary ultrastructure for TEM analysis
Antibody panels for IF	Target ciliary proteins	Identify specific ultrastructural defects (e.g., DNAH5, DNAI2)
Next-generation sequencing kits	Genetic analysis	Identify mutations in >50 known PCD-associated genes
nNO analyzer	Measure nasal nitric oxide	Screening and diagnostic testing
High-speed video microscope	Analyze ciliary beat	Functional assessment of ciliary motility
Cell culture materials	(e.g., air-liquid interface)	Differentiate ciliated epithelial cells for secondary ciliary dyskinesia exclusion

Future Directions and Research Implications

Integrated Diagnostic Approaches

Future PCD diagnostics will increasingly focus on genotype-phenotype correlations, integrating genetic testing with detailed assessment of ciliary structure and function [33]. The development of comprehensive genetic panels covering all known PCD genes facilitates this approach, though challenges remain in interpreting variants of uncertain significance and identifying novel disease-causing genes.

Technological Advancements

Emerging technologies promise to enhance PCD diagnosis:

• Exhaled breath condensate analysis: Potential non-invasive diagnostic tool [33]
• Artificial intelligence-assisted TEM: Deep learning systems like NOUS show promising agreement with specialist interpretation [40]
• Advanced genetic techniques: Whole-genome sequencing and RNA sequencing to identify novel genetic causes

Implications for Therapeutic Development

Accurate and early diagnosis is crucial for enrolling appropriately selected patients into clinical trials of novel therapies, including gene-based treatments and mRNA therapy approaches currently under investigation [33] [24]. Understanding the limitations of current diagnostic tools helps ensure that trial populations accurately represent the target therapeutic population, particularly for genotype-specific treatments.

Both nNO measurement and the PICADAR clinical tool play valuable but limited roles in the PCD diagnostic pathway. nNO exhibits variable sensitivity across genetic variants, particularly in patients with normal ciliary ultrastructure, necessitating adjusted diagnostic approaches and potentially higher cut-off values for specific genotypes. PICADAR provides a useful clinical prediction rule but demonstrates reduced sensitivity in patients without laterality defects. For researchers and drug development professionals, these limitations highlight the necessity of comprehensive diagnostic approaches that integrate multiple complementary techniques while considering genotypic and ultrastructural variations in PCD. Future research should focus on refining genotype-specific diagnostic algorithms and developing more inclusive prediction tools that capture the full spectrum of PCD presentation.

The diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) presents significant clinical challenges due to the absence of a single gold standard test and the heterogeneity of this genetic disease. Currently, diagnosis requires a combination of specialized investigations, including nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, genetic analysis, high-speed videomicroscopy (HSVM), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) [41]. Within this diagnostic framework, nNO measurement has emerged as an important screening tool, while clinical prediction tools like PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) help identify patients who should be referred for specialized testing [42]. However, both approaches face significant technical and patient-related limitations that can affect diagnostic accuracy. Device variability, patient cooperation, and recall bias introduce substantial complexity into the diagnostic process, potentially leading to both false-positive and false-negative results. This comparison guide objectively analyzes how nNO testing and the PICADAR score perform relative to each other when confronting these practical challenges, providing researchers and clinicians with evidence-based data to optimize diagnostic pathways.

Technical Challenges in nNO Measurement

Device Variability and Standardization

Nasal nitric oxide measurement, while established as a valuable screening tool for PCD, faces significant technical challenges related to device variability and standardization. Different analytical devices can produce substantially different nNO readings, potentially affecting diagnostic accuracy and the establishment of universal cut-off values.

A recent device comparison study evaluated three different nNO analyzers in distinguishing PCD patients from healthy controls and cystic fibrosis patients [29]. The study found that while all devices could effectively differentiate PCD patients, they produced systematically different output values. The research demonstrated that chemiluminescence devices (Eco Medics CLD 88sp) and electrochemical sensor-based devices (Medisoft FeNO+ and NIOX Vero) showed high correlation but significant measurement bias. Specifically, the Medisoft and NIOX devices produced higher nNO output values compared to the EcoMedics device, with biases of -19 nL/min and -21 nL/min, respectively [29].

Table 1: Comparison of nNO Measurement Devices for PCD Diagnosis

Device	Technology	Optimal PCD Cut-off	Sensitivity	Specificity	Bias vs. EcoMedics
EcoMedics CLD 88sp	Chemiluminescence	73 nL/min	100%	100%	Reference
Medisoft FeNO+	Electrochemical	92 nL/min	100%	100%	-19 nL/min
NIOX Vero	Electrochemical	87 nL/min	100%	100%	-21 nL/min

These findings have crucial implications for clinical practice and research. The study concluded that all three devices could serve as diagnostic tools for PCD only if device-specific cut-off values are implemented [29]. This variability necessitates careful consideration when establishing diagnostic protocols and comparing results across different centers, highlighting a significant technical limitation of nNO testing.

Experimental Protocol for nNO Device Comparison

The methodological approach for comparing nNO devices followed standardized guidelines to ensure reliable results [29]:

• Study Population: Included 16 controls, 16 PCD patients, and 12 cystic fibrosis patients matched for age and sex
• Measurement Protocol: nNO measurements were performed using all three devices following standardized guidelines, including exhalation against resistance
• Statistical Analysis: Correlation estimation, Bland-Altman analysis, ROC curve analysis, and one-way ANOVA were used to assess device differences and diagnostic performance
• Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the ability of each device to distinguish PCD patients from controls using device-specific optimal cut-off values determined by ROC analysis

This rigorous experimental design provides a model for future device validation studies and underscores the importance of methodological standardization in nNO measurement.

Patient Factors Affecting Diagnostic Accuracy

Seasonal Variability in nNO Measurements

A critical patient-related factor affecting nNO measurement reliability is seasonal variability. A comprehensive retrospective study analyzing 578 nasal NO tests from 434 subjects referred for PCD screening revealed striking seasonal patterns in measurement values [43].

The research found that median nasal NO levels were significantly lower in winter (123 nL/min) compared to summer (167 nL/min), with a statistically significant difference (P = .002) [43]. This seasonal variation had direct clinical implications, as the proportion of abnormal values (<66 nL/min) was substantially higher in winter months (29.7% in January versus 6% in August, P = .007). Importantly, this pattern persisted throughout the observation period, though winter nasal NO variability decreased during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, possibly due to reduced viral exposures [43].

Table 2: Impact of Seasonal Variation on nNO Measurements

Season	Median nNO	Proportion of Abnormal Values	Clinical Implications
Winter	123 nL/min	29.7% in January	Higher false-positive rates
Summer	167 nL/min	6% in August	More reliable screening
COVID-19 Lockdown	Reduced variability	Not reported	Impact of infection control

Notably, this seasonal pattern was consistent across different age groups and was observed in both children under 5 years and older patients. In contrast, patients with confirmed PCD demonstrated consistently low nNO levels (median 14 nL/min) throughout the year with minimal seasonal variation [43]. Based on these findings, the researchers recommended repeat testing in another season, preferably summer, to ensure accurate PCD screening and avoid unnecessary invasive tests.

Patient Cooperation in nNO Testing

The accuracy of nNO measurement is highly dependent on patient cooperation, particularly the ability to perform correct technique during exhalation against resistance. This requirement presents special challenges in specific patient populations:

• Young children (typically under 5 years of age) often struggle with the coordinated breathing maneuver required for standard nNO measurement
• Patients with cognitive or developmental impairments may have difficulty following instructions for proper technique
• Critically ill patients or those with significant respiratory compromise may be unable to perform the necessary maneuver

These limitations in vulnerable populations can restrict the applicability of nNO testing and may require specialized protocols or alternative diagnostic approaches.

Recall Bias in Clinical Prediction Tools

PICADAR Score Structure and Dependence on Patient Recall

The PICADAR tool is a clinical prediction rule developed to identify patients who should be referred for specialized PCD testing. The tool utilizes seven clinical parameters readily obtained from patient history [42]:

• Full-term gestation
• Neonatal chest symptoms
• Neonatal intensive care admittance
• Chronic rhinitis
• Ear symptoms
• Situs inversus
• Congenital cardiac defect

Each parameter is assigned a point value, and the total score determines the probability of PCD, with a cutoff score of 5 points providing 90% sensitivity and 75% specificity [42]. However, the tool's dependence on historical patient information makes it vulnerable to recall bias, particularly for neonatal events and early childhood symptoms when patients are referred at older ages.

The diagnostic performance of PICADAR was validated in a derivation group of 641 consecutive patients, of which 75 (12%) were diagnosed with PCD [42]. The tool demonstrated good accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.91 in the derivation group and 0.87 in external validation [42]. While these performance metrics are robust, their dependence on accurate historical information remains a significant limitation.

Experimental Protocol for PICADAR Development and Validation

The methodology for developing and validating PICADAR provides insight into its strengths and limitations [42]:

• Study Population: 641 consecutive patients with definitive diagnostic outcomes from the University Hospital Southampton PCD diagnostic center (2007-2013)
• Data Collection: A proforma was used to collect patient data through clinical interview prior to diagnostic testing
• Model Development: Logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors from 27 potential variables
• Validation: External validation was performed using a sample of 187 patients from the Royal Brompton Hospital
• Statistical Analysis: Predictive performance was tested by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, and the model was simplified into a practical tool

This comprehensive development process strengthens the tool's validity but does not eliminate the inherent vulnerability to recall bias in clinical data collection.

Comparative Diagnostic Performance Analysis

Direct Comparison of Technical and Patient Factors

When evaluating nNO testing versus PICADAR for PCD diagnosis, each approach demonstrates distinct advantages and limitations in managing technical and patient-related challenges.

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Approaches for PCD

Factor	nNO Testing	PICADAR Score
Device Variability	Significant; requires device-specific cut-offs [29]	Not applicable
Seasonal Variation	Significant; winter values lower, more false positives [43]	Not affected
Patient Cooperation	Critical; affects test feasibility and accuracy	Minimal requirement
Recall Bias	Not applicable	Significant; depends on historical accuracy [42]
Age Limitations	Challenging in young children (<5 years)	Applicable across ages
Resource Requirements	Requires expensive equipment and trained technicians [42]	Low-cost, uses routine clinical data

This comparative analysis reveals a complementary relationship between the two approaches. While nNO testing provides an objective physiological measurement, it is vulnerable to technical and seasonal variations. Conversely, PICADAR offers a low-cost clinical assessment tool but depends on historical data accuracy that may be compromised by recall bias.

Integrated Diagnostic Workflow

The following diagnostic workflow illustrates how nNO testing and PICADAR can be integrated while accounting for their respective limitations:

This integrated approach leverages the strengths of both methods while implementing specific strategies to mitigate their respective limitations, including verification of historical data to address recall bias and seasonal repetition of nNO testing to account for temporal variability.

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Successful implementation of PCD diagnostic and research protocols requires specific technical resources and materials. The following table details essential research reagent solutions and their applications in PCD investigation.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostics

Reagent/Material	Application	Function	Technical Notes
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzers (EcoMedics CLD 88sp, Medisoft FeNO+, NIOX Vero)	nNO measurement	Quantifies nasal nitric oxide concentration for PCD screening	Device-specific cut-offs required; chemiluminescence vs. electrochemical technologies [29]
Interdental Brushes (IDB-G50 3mm)	Nasal epithelial cell collection	Minimally invasive sampling of respiratory epithelium	Cells used for HSVM, TEM, immunofluorescence, and ALI culture [41]
High-Speed Video Microscopy System	Ciliary beat pattern analysis	Records and analyzes ciliary motility at 300 frames per second	Requires specialized expertise in pattern recognition [41]
Transmission Electron Microscopy	Ciliary ultrastructure analysis	Identifies hallmark defects in dynein arms and other structures	Follows BEAT-PCD TEM criteria; detects ~83% of PCD cases [44]
Immunofluorescence Staining Reagents (DNAH5, GAS8, RSPH9 antibodies)	Protein localization analysis	Detects absence of specific ciliary proteins	Standard panel covers most prevalent mutations; additional antibodies for specific patterns [41]
Air-Liquid Interface (ALI) Culture Materials	Ciliary cell culture	Differentiates primary ciliary dyskinesia from secondary causes	Regrows ciliated epithelium; requires 3-4 weeks for differentiation [41]
Genetic Testing Panels	PCD genetic analysis	Identifies pathogenic variants in >50 known PCD genes	Increasing importance as genetic understanding expands [33]

These essential materials represent the core toolkit for comprehensive PCD diagnostic evaluation in specialized centers. The selection of specific reagents should be guided by the diagnostic algorithm employed and the technical capabilities of the laboratory.

The comparative analysis of nNO testing and the PICADAR clinical prediction rule reveals a complementary relationship rather than a competitive one in addressing the complex diagnostic challenges of PCD. nNO measurement provides valuable objective physiological data but requires careful attention to device-specific cut-offs, seasonal variability, and patient cooperation factors. The PICADAR score offers an efficient, low-cost screening approach but depends heavily on historical data accuracy and is vulnerable to recall bias.

For researchers and clinicians, this analysis suggests that optimal diagnostic accuracy is achieved through sequential application of these tools rather than reliance on a single method. PICADAR serves as an effective initial filter to identify high-probability candidates for further testing, while nNO measurement provides objective physiological confirmation before proceeding to more invasive and expensive specialized diagnostics. Future developments in PCD diagnostics should focus on standardizing nNO measurement protocols across devices, validating PICADAR in diverse populations to minimize cultural and recall biases, and integrating genetic testing more comprehensively into diagnostic algorithms. By acknowledging and systematically addressing the technical and patient-related factors explored in this analysis, the field can move toward more accurate, efficient, and accessible PCD diagnosis worldwide.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by impaired structure and function of motile cilia, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease, laterality defects, and subfertility [16]. The diagnosis of PCD is challenging due to non-specific symptoms and the absence of a single gold-standard test [16]. Confirmatory diagnostic tests, such as transmission electron microscopy (TEM), genetic analysis, and high-speed video microscopy (HSVM), are highly specialized, expensive, and available only in specialized centers [2] [16]. This diagnostic complexity creates a pressing need for effective, accessible screening tools to identify high-risk patients who warrant referral for comprehensive testing.

Two leading screening approaches have emerged: the PICADAR score, a clinical prediction rule based on patient history, and nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, a biochemical test. Individually, each tool has demonstrated utility but also possesses significant limitations. PICADAR's effectiveness can be variable, and it requires a history of persistent wet cough for application [5]. Meanwhile, nNO measurement requires specific, costly equipment and trained technicians [2]. Consequently, research has increasingly focused on whether these tools can be used synergistically. This review objectively compares the performance of PICADAR and nNO and synthesizes the evidence for a combined screening strategy to enhance predictive power for PCD diagnosis.

Individual Performance of PICADAR and nNO

PICADAR: A Clinical Prediction Tool

The PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) score is a diagnostic predictive tool developed to identify patients requiring definitive PCD testing. It is based on seven easily obtainable clinical parameters from a patient's history [2] [1].

• Parameters: The seven predictive parameters are: full-term gestation, neonatal chest symptoms, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), chronic rhinitis, ear symptoms, situs inversus, and congenital cardiac defect [2].
• Scoring and Performance: In its original 2016 validation study on 641 referrals, a PICADAR cut-off score of 5 points yielded a sensitivity of 0.90 and a specificity of 0.75 for predicting a PCD diagnosis. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91 upon internal validation and 0.87 upon external validation [2] [1].
• Key Limitations: A critical limitation is that PICADAR is designed specifically for patients with a persistent wet cough; individuals without this symptom are ruled out, potentially missing atypical cases [16]. A recent 2025 pre-print study by Schramm et al. highlighted this issue, finding that 7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients reported no daily wet cough and would have been missed [5]. The same study reported an overall sensitivity of only 75% in a cohort of 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients, with sensitivity dropping to 61% in patients with normal organ arrangement (situs solitus) [5]. Furthermore, some parameters, like neonatal history, can be difficult to recall accurately in older children and adults [16].

Nasal Nitric Oxide: A Biophysical Assay

Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement is a well-established screening test for PCD, as patients with the disease typically have markedly low nNO levels.

• Physiological Basis and Measurement: The pathophysiological reason for low nNO in PCD is not fully understood but is a consistent finding. Measurements are typically performed using an electrochemical analyzer with a nasal olive probe during breath-holding or tidal breathing, following standardized guidelines [16] [45].
• Performance and Thresholds: nNO demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance. A 2017 study by Rademacher et al. found that a cutoff of 77 nL/min best differentiated between PCD and non-PCD bronchiectasis patients [4]. The discriminative power of nNO depends on the chosen threshold. A 2016 conference abstract showed that using a threshold of 30 nL/min resulted in a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.95, whereas a higher threshold of 100 nL/min increased sensitivity to 1.00 (perfect identification of PCD cases) while reducing specificity to 0.73 [3].
• Key Limitations: The primary limitation of nNO is its technical and financial requirement for specific equipment and trained operators, limiting its availability in non-specialist settings [2]. Furthermore, nNO levels can be falsely elevated in very young children (under 3-5 years), making measurement less reliable, and can be transiently lowered by acute viral infections, necessitating repeat testing when the patient is well [16] [45].

Table 1: Direct Comparison of PICADAR and Nasal Nitric Oxide for PCD Screening

Feature	PICADAR Score	Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)
Basis	Clinical history & symptoms [2]	Biophysical measurement [4]
Key Parameters	7 items (e.g., situs, neonatal symptoms, chronic cough) [2]	Nasal NO concentration (nL/min or ppb) [4]
Optimal Cut-off	≥5 points [2] [1]	77 nL/min [4] or 100 nL/min for max sensitivity [3]
Reported Sensitivity	0.75 - 0.90 [2] [5]	0.91 - 1.00 [3]
Reported Specificity	0.75 - 0.89 [2] [4]	0.73 - 0.95 [3]
Major Advantages	Quick, inexpensive, no special equipment needed [2]	High sensitivity, objective quantitative result [45] [3]
Major Limitations	Lower sensitivity in situs solitus; requires chronic wet cough [5]	Requires expensive equipment and technical expertise [2]

Evidence for a Combined Screening Strategy

Research indicates that PICADAR and nNO are not merely interchangeable but are complementary tools. Using them in combination can create a synergistic screening algorithm that outperforms either tool used alone by mitigating their individual weaknesses.

Enhanced Sensitivity and Negative Predictive Value

The primary strength of a combined approach is the attainment of near-perfect sensitivity, which is crucial for a screening test to avoid missing true PCD cases.

A pivotal 2016 prospective study of 142 consecutive referrals demonstrated this synergy. The study evaluated the strategy of considering a test "positive" for screening if either PICADAR was >5 or nNO was below a specified threshold. This simultaneous testing approach showed that the higher sensitivity of nNO could compensate for the cases missed by PICADAR, and vice versa [3].

• When using an nNO threshold of 100 nL/min in combination with PICADAR, the sensitivity reached 1.00 (33/33 true positives identified), with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. This means no PCD cases were missed by the combined screen, although specificity was lower (0.70) [3].
• This combined strategy was significantly more sensitive than PICADAR alone (sensitivity 0.88) or nNO at a strict threshold of 30 nL/min alone (sensitivity 0.91) [3].

Practical Application in Clinical Algorithms

The synergistic effect has been observed to improve the practicality of the diagnostic workflow. A 2021 study evaluating a Clinical Index (CI), PICADAR, and NA-CDCF found that nNO "further improved the predictive power of all three tools" [16] [46]. This suggests that nNO acts as a force multiplier for clinical scores, not just PICADAR.

In practice, a high PICADAR score can justify referral for nNO testing in a secondary care setting, while a low nNO result in a patient with a moderate PICADAR score can strongly reinforce the decision to refer for definitive testing. This two-step process is efficient. A 2024 case series confirmed the utility of nNO as a first-line test, noting that a single above-cutoff nNO value made PCD "unlikely" in 91% of cases, preventing unnecessary further testing [45].

The following diagram illustrates a proposed synergistic screening workflow based on the compiled evidence:

Experimental Protocols and Research Toolkit

To ensure the reproducibility of research findings and clinical results, standardization of protocols for both PICADAR assessment and nNO measurement is essential.

Protocol for PICADAR Assessment

The PICADAR tool is applied through a structured clinical interview prior to any diagnostic testing [2].

• Patient Population: The tool is designed for patients with a history of persistent wet cough. It is not validated for patients without this symptom [2] [5].
• Data Collection: A clinician collects data on the seven predictive parameters through direct questioning. Data is typically coded as yes=1, no=0. The parameters and their assigned points are shown in Table 2 [2].
• Scoring: The points for each positive answer are summed to produce a total score. A score of ≥5 points is considered positive and indicates a high probability of PCD, warranting referral for further testing [2] [1].

Table 2: PICADAR Scoring System [2]

Predictive Parameter	Points Assigned
Situs Inversus	2
Congenital Cardiac Defect	2
Chest Symptoms at Term	1
Admission to NICU at Term	1
Persistent Rhinitis	1
Chronic Ear/Heating Symptoms	1
Total Possible Score	12

Protocol for nNO Measurement

The measurement of nNO should adhere to international guidelines to ensure reliability and comparability between centers [16] [45].

• Equipment: Electrochemical analyzers such as the Niox Mino (Aerocrine AB) or Niox Vero (Circassia) are standard [16].
• Patient Preparation: The patient should be free of acute respiratory infections for at least 2-4 weeks. No nasal blowing, eating, or drinking should occur in the hour preceding the test [16] [45].
• Measurement Technique: The patient is seated and breathing quietly. A nasal olive probe is inserted into one nostril to create a seal. Nasal air is aspirated at a passive sampling flow rate of 5 mL/s (0.3 L/min) while the patient exhales against resistance to close the velum (or during breath hold for cooperative children). This prevents contamination of the sample with pulmonary NO [16] [45].
• Interpretation: The result, expressed in nanoliters per minute (nL/min) or parts per billion (ppb), is compared to established thresholds. A value persistently below the cutoff (e.g., 77 nL/min or 100 nL/min) is considered a positive screen [4] [3].

The Researcher's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Equipment for PCD Screening Research

Item	Function in Research	Example Products/Brands
Electrochemical nNO Analyzer	Measures nasal nitric oxide concentration with high accuracy for screening.	Niox Mino, Niox Vero [16]
Nasal Olive Probes	Provides a seal in the nostril for aspiration of nasal air during nNO measurement.	Single-use, various sizes [16]
Structured Clinical History Form	Standardizes the collection of patient data for accurate PICADAR and other clinical score calculation.	Custom proforma based on PICADAR parameters [2]
High-Speed Video Microscope (HSVM)	The primary definitive diagnostic tool; analyzes ciliary beat pattern and frequency.	Keyence Motion Analyzer [16]
Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)	Definitive diagnostic tool; visualizes ultrastructural defects in cilia.	Various (e.g., JEOL, Hitachi) [44]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Definitive diagnostic tool; identifies mutations in over 50 known PCD-related genes.	Custom panels for ciliopathies [16]

The evidence clearly demonstrates that a synergistic screening strategy, which combines the clinical acumen of the PICADAR score with the objective, biophysical data from nNO measurement, creates a more powerful tool than either method in isolation. This approach leverages the high specificity of PICADAR and the exceptionally high sensitivity of nNO, resulting in a screening algorithm with a near-perfect negative predictive value. This is critical for clinical practice, as it ensures that very few, if any, PCD patients are missed during initial screening, while also helping to avoid overburdening specialized diagnostic centers with low-probability referrals.

Future research should focus on the validation of this combined algorithm in diverse, large-scale, multi-center trials, particularly in adult populations where historical data like neonatal symptoms may be less reliable [4]. Furthermore, as noted in the recent 2025 pre-print, the performance of PICADAR is suboptimal in patients with situs solitus and those without hallmark ultrastructural defects, highlighting an ongoing need for refined clinical tools or the incorporation of genetic data into initial risk stratification [5]. For the present, however, the integration of PICADAR and nNO represents the most effective and practical strategy for improving the efficiency and accuracy of the PCD diagnostic pathway, ultimately promoting earlier diagnosis and better patient outcomes.

Evidence-Based Performance Review: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Head-to-Head Comparisons

The diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) remains challenging due to the genetic and clinical heterogeneity of the disease, necessitating robust screening tools before proceeding to complex confirmatory testing. Two key approaches have emerged: the PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) score, a clinical prediction tool based on patient history, and measurement of nasal nitric oxide (nNO), a biochemical test that exploits the characteristically low nNO levels in PCD patients. This guide provides a systematic, evidence-based comparison of their sensitivity and specificity, with a specific focus on performance within genetically-confirmed cohorts, to inform researchers and clinicians in selecting appropriate diagnostic strategies.

Methodological Protocols

To ensure a fair comparison, it is critical to understand the standard methodologies for applying each tool.

PICADAR Score Assessment

The PICADAR tool is a symptom-based score designed for patients with persistent wet cough [2]. It calculates a risk score based on seven readily obtainable clinical features:

• Full-term gestation
• Neonatal chest symptoms
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission
• Chronic rhinitis
• Chronic ear symptoms
• Situs inversus
• Congenital cardiac defect

Each affirmative answer contributes a predefined number of points. The total score stratifies patients into risk categories. A score of ≥5 points is the recommended cut-off for referring a patient for definitive PCD testing, originally yielding a sensitivity of 0.90 and a specificity of 0.75 [2]. The assessment is conducted through a structured clinical interview prior to diagnostic testing.

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement Protocol

The nNO measurement must be performed using standardized techniques in cooperative patients, typically those over 5 years of age [47] [48]. The key steps involve:

• Equipment: Chemiluminescence analyzers are the standard technology.
• Technique: The velum closure technique is employed, either by exhalation against resistance or breath holding, to prevent nasal NO contamination from lower airway air.
• Sampling: Nasal air is aspirated from one nostril at a passive sampling flow rate of 5 mL/s.
• Interpretation: nNO levels are expressed in nanoliters per minute (nL/min) or parts per billion (ppb). A value below a specific cut-off (commonly <77 nL/min) is highly suggestive of PCD [4] [48]. Testing should be repeated on at least two separate occasions to confirm persistently low levels.

Comparative Performance Data

The diagnostic accuracy of PICADAR and nNO has been evaluated both independently and in combination. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from multiple studies.

Table 1: Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of PICADAR and nNO

Tool	Sensitivity (Range)	Specificity (Range)	AUC	Key Patient Population	Source
PICADAR (≥5 points)	75% - 90%	75% - 89%	0.87 - 0.91	Consecutive referrals with persistent wet cough	[49] [2]
nNO (<77 nL/min)	94% - 97.6%	82% - 96.4%	>0.96	Cooperative patients (≥5 yrs) with high clinical suspicion	[4] [47] [34]
nNO + PICADAR	Up to 100%*	70% - 89%*	N/A	Consecutive referrals for PCD diagnostics	[34]

Performance of combined testing depends on the nNO threshold used. Maximum sensitivity (100%) is achieved with an nNO cut-off of 100 nL/min, though this reduces specificity [34]. N/A: Not Available.

Analysis of Sensitivity in Genetically-Confirmed Cohorts

A recent study specifically evaluated PICADAR in 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD, revealing critical limitations in its sensitivity [49]. The overall sensitivity was 75%, but it varied dramatically across subpopulations:

• PCD with laterality defects: Sensitivity was 95%.
• PCD with situs solitus (normal organ arrangement): Sensitivity dropped to 61%.
• PCD with hallmark ultrastructural defects: Sensitivity was 83%.
• PCD without hallmark ultrastructural defects: Sensitivity was only 59%.

Furthermore, the tool's initial question excludes patients without a daily wet cough. In this cohort, 7% (18/269) of genetically confirmed PCD patients reported no daily wet cough and would have been automatically ruled negative by PICADAR [49].

In contrast, a meta-analysis of 12 studies (1,344 patients, including 514 with PCD) found that nNO measurement had a summary sensitivity of 97.6% and a specificity of 96.0% when using EM and/or genetic testing as the reference standard [47]. This indicates that nNO maintains high sensitivity even in genetically diverse PCD populations.

Clinical and Research Implications

Integrated Testing Pathway

The evidence supports an integrated, sequential approach for optimal patient selection. The following workflow diagrams the recommended diagnostic pathway, combining both tools to maximize efficiency and accuracy.

Diagram 1: A sequential diagnostic workflow for PCD, integrating PICADAR and nNO screening to optimize referral for definitive testing. TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy; HSVM: High-Speed Video Microscopy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and equipment essential for conducting research and diagnostics in PCD, as cited in the reviewed literature.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Item	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Chemiluminescence nNO Analyzer	Gold-standard for measuring low nasal nitric oxide levels.	Niox Vero, Niox Mino (Circassia) [16] [48]
Transmission Electron Microscope	Visualizing ciliary ultrastructural defects in biopsy samples.	Used to identify hallmark defects (e.g., outer dynein arm absence) [44] [48]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Genetic confirmation, identifying biallelic mutations in PCD-associated genes.	Panels covering >35 PCD genes (e.g., DNAH5, DNAI1) [16] [48]
High-Speed Video Microscope	Analyzing ciliary beat frequency and pattern for functional assessment.	Keyence Motion Analyzer Microscope VW-6000/5000 [16]
Air-Liquid Interface (ALI) Culture Media	Culturing ciliated epithelial cells to differentiate primary from secondary dyskinesia.	Allows re-differentiation of ciliated cells after nasal brushing [2]

Both PICADAR and nNO measurement are valuable tools in the PCD diagnostic pathway, but they serve different purposes and have distinct performance profiles. nNO measurement demonstrates superior and more consistent sensitivity and specificity in genetically-confirmed cohorts, making it a more reliable standalone screening test. In contrast, PICADAR's sensitivity is highly variable and significantly lower in patients with situs solitus or normal ciliary ultrastructure, limiting its utility as a universal screening rule.

For clinical practice and research, the evidence supports using nNO as a first-line screening tool in cooperative patients. PICADAR can be a useful adjunct in settings where nNO measurement is unavailable, with the important caveat that its negative result cannot reliably exclude PCD, particularly in patients without laterality defects. A combined approach, leveraging the high sensitivity of nNO, remains the most effective strategy for selecting patients for definitive genetic and ultrastructural testing.

Within the diagnostic pathway for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD), no single test is universally conclusive. Consequently, screening tools such as the PICADAR score and nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement are critical for identifying high-risk patients who require confirmatory testing. The performance of these tools, however, is not uniform across all patient subgroups. This guide provides a structured comparison of PICADAR and nNO, focusing on how patient phenotype—specifically the presence of laterality defects and the underlying ultrastructural defects of cilia—significantly influences their diagnostic accuracy. Understanding this stratification is essential for researchers and clinicians to optimize referral pathways and interpret study results accurately in the context of PCD's significant genetic and clinical heterogeneity.

Key Performance Metrics at a Glance

Table 1: Overall Diagnostic Performance of PICADAR and nNO

Metric	PICADAR	Nasal NO (nNO)
Primary Function	Clinical prediction tool [50] [16]	Screening tool [33] [24]
Typical Cut-off	Score ≥ 2 (Modified version) [4]	< 77 nL/min in adults with bronchiectasis [4]
Reported Sensitivity	Up to 0.90 - 1.00 [4] [50]	High in classic PCD phenotypes [4]
Reported Specificity	0.75 - 0.89 [4] [50]	High in classic PCD phenotypes [4]
Key Strengths	Non-invasive, uses easily obtainable clinical data [50]	Quick, objective physiologic measure [24]
Key Limitations	Requires complete clinical history [16]	Requires patient cooperation; results can be normal in some genetic variants [33] [51]

Impact of Laterality Defects on Performance

The presence of situs inversus or heterotaxy (collectively known as laterality defects) is a major component of the PICADAR score and a classic feature of PCD, present in approximately half of all patients [24] [52]. This phenotype strongly influences the performance of both screening tools.

• PICADAR Performance: The presence of a laterality defect directly increases a patient's PICADAR score, making it a powerful predictor for identifying PCD in this subgroup. In a study of adults with bronchiectasis, a modified PICADAR score demonstrated excellent discriminative value [4]. Patients with PCD had a significantly higher mean score (5 ± 2) compared to those without PCD (1 ± 1). A score of ≥2 yielded a sensitivity of 1.00 and a specificity of 0.89 in this cohort [4].
• nNO Performance: Nasal NO is consistently and significantly lower in PCD patients with laterality defects compared to those without PCD. The same study in adults with bronchiectasis found a mean nNO of 25 nL/min in the PCD group versus 227 nL/min in the non-PCD group. A cutoff of 77 nL/min provided the best differentiation [4]. The combination of a low nNO and a high PICADAR score was concluded to be a highly suitable screening algorithm [4].

Table 2: Performance Stratification by Laterality and Genetic Subgroups

Phenotypic / Genotypic Group	Impact on PICADAR	Impact on nNO	Clinical & Research Implications
Patients with Laterality Defects (e.g., Situs Inversus)	High score driven by this key clinical feature. High sensitivity and specificity [4].	Consistently very low levels, making it a robust screening tool in this group [4].	Both tools perform well. A high PICADAR and low nNO strongly warrant confirmatory testing.
Patients without Laterality Defects	Lower pre-test probability. Score relies on other clinical features (e.g., neonatal symptoms, chronic wet cough) [16].	Still typically low, but performance may be less definitive than in groups with laterality defects.	Risk of diagnostic delay is higher. A low threshold for using both tools is necessary.
DNAH11 Mutations	Expected to perform normally, as clinical presentation typically includes classic PCD symptoms.	Can be normal or near-normal, despite clear PCD symptoms [24] [52]. This is a critical limitation.	nNO is an unreliable screening test for this genotype. Reliance on PICADAR and direct functional/structural testing is key.
CCDC39/CCDC40 Mutations	Expected to perform well, often associated with a severe disease course and classic symptoms [24].	Expected to be low, consistent with most PCD cases.	Both tools should be effective for initial screening in this severe phenotype.
HYDIN, RSPH9, RSPH4A Mutations	Expected to perform well due to clinical symptoms, though these genotypes are not associated with laterality defects [24].	Expected to be low.	PICADAR score may be lower due to absence of situs inversus, but other clinical items can still yield a predictive score.

Experimental Protocols for Key Studies

Protocol: Validating a Modified PICADAR and nNO in Adults

This protocol is based on a retrospective study analyzing the performance of a modified PICADAR score and nNO in an adult bronchiectasis cohort [4].

• 1. Study Population: Recruit adult patients (e.g., >18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of bronchiectasis via high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Patients should be grouped into PCD and non-PCD based on definitive diagnostic tests (genetics, transmission electron microscopy/TEM, high-speed video microscopy/HSVM).
• 2. Data Collection:
  • PICADAR Score: Collect clinical data for a modified PICADAR score. The original PICADAR includes seven items: situs abnormality, gestational age, neonatal chest symptoms, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), congenital cardiac defects, rhinitis, and ear/hearing symptoms [16]. The modified version may adjust these criteria.
  • nNO Measurement: Perform nNO measurement using an electrochemical analyzer according to international standards (e.g., ATS/ERS recommendations). The tidal breathing technique with a nasal olive probe and a passive sampling flow rate of 0.3 L/min is typical. Results are expressed in nL/min or parts per billion (ppb).
• 3. Statistical Analysis:
  • Compare mean nNO levels and mean PICADAR scores between the PCD and non-PCD groups using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., t-test, Mann-Whitney U test).
  • Perform Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to determine the optimal cutoff values for nNO and PICADAR that best differentiate between the two groups.
  • Report the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for each tool.

Protocol: Comparative Analysis of Predictive Tools

This protocol outlines a methodology for directly comparing multiple PCD predictive tools, including PICADAR, a Clinical Index (CI), and the North American Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF) [16].

• 1. Study Population: Enroll a large, unselected cohort of patients referred for suspected PCD. Exclude children under one year due to the limited predictive value of some historical data.
• 2. Data Collection and Scoring:
  • For each patient, calculate scores for all predictive tools being compared (CI, PICADAR, NA-CDCF) based on clinical data retrieved from medical records.
  • In a subset of patients (e.g., >3 years old), measure nNO levels using standardized techniques.
• 3. Definitive PCD Diagnosis: Establish a definitive PCD diagnosis using a combination of methods as per ERS guidelines, which may include:
  • HSVM: Analyze ciliary beat frequency and pattern from nasal brushings.
  • TEM: Examine the ultrastructure of cilia from nasal or bronchial samples.
  • Genetic Testing: Use next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels targeting known PCD-associated genes.
• 4. Data Analysis:
  • Compare scores of all predictive tools between the confirmed PCD and non-PCD groups.
  • Use ROC curve analysis to calculate and compare the AUC for each tool.
  • Evaluate the additive value of nNO by analyzing the improvement in sensitivity and specificity when combined with each clinical tool.

Diagram 1: PCD Screening and Diagnostic Workflow. This diagram integrates phenotype assessment, PICADAR, and nNO to stratify patients for confirmatory testing.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for PCD Diagnostic Research

Item / Solution	Specific Examples	Research Function & Application
nNO Analysis System	Niox Mino (Aerocrine AB), Niox Vero (Circassia), CLD 88sp NO analyzer (ECO MEDICS AG) [16] [51]	Provides quantitative, objective measurement of nasal nitric oxide for screening and physiologic studies.
High-Speed Video Microscope	Keyence Motion Analyzer Microscope VW-6000/5000; Inverted phase-contrast Nikon microscope with Basler high-speed camera [16] [51]	Enables functional analysis of ciliary beat frequency (CBF) and pattern (CBP) from live cell samples.
Antibodies for Immunofluorescence (IF)	Monoclonal Mouse anti-DNAH5; Polyclonal Rabbit anti-GAS8; Alexa Fluor-conjugated secondary antibodies (e.g., Anti-mouse 488, Anti-rabbit 546) [51]	Used to detect the presence, absence, or mislocalization of specific ciliary proteins in respiratory epithelial cells.
Cell Culture Medium	RPMI 1640 Medium [51]	Maintains viability of ciliated epithelial cells ex vivo for HSVM and IF analyses.
Genetic Testing Panel	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panels for PCD (e.g., 22-50+ gene panels); MLPA for DNAH5/DNAI1 [24] [16]	Identifies disease-causing mutations, confirms diagnosis, and enables genotype-phenotype correlations.

The diagnostic performance of both PICADAR and nasal NO is profoundly shaped by patient phenotype. Laterality defects create a classic presentation where both tools exhibit high sensitivity and specificity. In contrast, specific ultrastructural/genotypic groups, most notably patients with DNAH11 mutations, reveal a critical weakness of nNO, which can yield normal results and thus provide false reassurance. For researchers and drug developers, this stratification is paramount. Subject recruitment and biomarker validation for clinical trials must account for this phenotypic diversity to avoid biased results. A multimodal diagnostic approach, leveraging the complementary strengths of clinical prediction scores, physiologic measurement, and advanced genetic and microscopic techniques, remains the unequivocal standard for accurate PCD diagnosis and phenotyping.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by impaired mucociliary clearance due to abnormal ciliary structure and function. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, requiring specialized testing available only at tertiary centers. This has driven the development of clinical predictive tools to identify high-risk patients for further referral. Among the most prominent are the PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) score, the Clinical Index (CI), and the North America Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF). Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement serves as an important, objective screening test in this context [16] [33]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these tools, synthesizing current evidence to inform researchers and clinicians in the field of PCD diagnostics.

Tool Descriptions and Components

The predictive tools for PCD differ in their constituent clinical features and scoring methodologies.

• PICADAR: This rule was developed to identify patients with persistent wet cough who require specialized testing [1] [2]. It incorporates seven clinical parameters: full-term gestation, neonatal chest symptoms, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), chronic rhinitis, ear symptoms, situs inversus, and congenital cardiac defects [1] [53] [2]. A score ≥5 points is recommended as the cut-off for referral, with reported sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 in its derivation study [1].

• Clinical Index (CI): The CI is a simpler seven-item questionnaire, with each "yes" answer contributing one point [16] [46]. Its items focus on early respiratory symptoms: significant neonatal respiratory difficulties, rhinitis in the first two months of life, pneumonia, three or more episodes of bronchitis, chronic secretoric otitis or recurrent acute otitis, year-round nasal discharge/obstruction, and frequent antibiotic treatments for respiratory infections [16]. It does not require assessment for laterality defects or congenital heart disease, potentially simplifying its application [16] [46].

• NA-CDCF: This framework defines four key clinical criteria: laterality defects, unexplained neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), early-onset year-round nasal congestion, and early-onset year-round wet cough [16] [46]. It serves as a set of clinical indicators to raise suspicion for PCD.

• Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO): nNO is a well-established screening tool, as patients with PCD typically have markedly low nNO levels [16] [33]. It provides an objective, quantitative measure and is often used in conjunction with clinical prediction tools [16].

Comparative Experimental Protocols

A 2021 study by Martinů et al. provides a direct comparison of CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF, with a secondary analysis on the additive value of nNO [16] [46] [54]. The methodology is outlined below.

• Study Population: The research enrolled 1,401 patients referred to a tertiary center for PCD suspicion. The definitive diagnosis of PCD was confirmed in 67 (4.8%) patients using a combination of high-speed video microscopy (HSVM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and genetic testing, adhering to European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines [16] [54].

• Data Collection & Analysis: Clinical data was systematically collected from all patients. The scores for CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF were calculated retrospectively. The predictive characteristics of each tool were analyzed and compared using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, with the Area Under the Curve (AUC) serving as the primary metric of performance [16] [46]. Furthermore, nNO was measured in 569 patients, and its ability to improve the predictive power of each clinical tool was investigated [16].

The following diagram illustrates the experimental workflow of this key comparative study.

Comparative Performance Data

Diagnostic Accuracy of Standalone Tools

The 2021 comparative study revealed critical differences in the performance and applicability of these tools.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Predictive Tools for PCD (Martinů et al., 2021)

Predictive Tool	Number of Items	Area Under the Curve (AUC)	Key Applicability Findings
Clinical Index (CI)	7	Largest AUC (CI > NA-CDCF, p=0.005) [16]	No need for assessment of laterality or congenital heart defects [16] [46].
PICADAR	7	No significant difference from NA-CDCF (p=0.093) [16]	Could not be calculated in 6.1% of patients (n=86) due to absence of chronic wet cough [16] [46].
NA-CDCF	4	Smaller than CI (p=0.005) [16]	Provides a set of key clinical features to raise suspicion [16] [46].

This study demonstrated that all three scores were significantly higher in the PCD group compared to the non-PCD group. However, the CI showed a statistical advantage in AUC over the NA-CDCF, while the AUC for PICADAR was not significantly different from that of NA-CDCF [16]. A major practical limitation of PICADAR is its inherent requirement for a persistent wet cough, which renders it inapplicable for a subset of suspected patients [16] [46].

Impact of Patient Phenotype on PICADAR Sensitivity

A critical 2025 pre-print study by Schramm et al. evaluated PICADAR in a cohort of 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients, highlighting significant limitations in its sensitivity, which is highly dependent on patient phenotype [5].

Table 2: PICADAR Sensitivity Stratified by Patient Phenotype (Schramm et al., 2025)

Patient Subgroup	PICADAR Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)
Overall Cohort	75% (202/269)	7 (5 - 9) [5]
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8 - 11) [5]
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4 - 8) [5]
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	Not Reported [5]
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%	Not Reported [5]

This study found that 7% of genetically proven PCD patients were ruled out by PICADAR's initial requirement for a daily wet cough [5]. The tool's sensitivity was substantially lower in patients with situs solitus or those lacking hallmark defects on TEM, indicating it may miss a significant proportion of patients with atypical or milder presentations [5].

Enhanced Performance with Nasal Nitric Oxide

The objective measure of nNO significantly augments the predictive power of clinical tools.

• Synergistic Effect: The 2021 study concluded that incorporating nNO measurement improved the predictive power of all three clinical tools (CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF) [16] [54]. This supports a diagnostic strategy that combines clinical suspicion based on a predictive tool with an objective, physiological test like nNO.

• nNO as a Standalone Screen: nNO is a well-established screening tool, as PCD patients typically exhibit low levels [33]. However, some genetic variants can present with normal nNO, and the test requires specialized equipment and patient cooperation, limiting its use in very young children [33].

The relationship between the tools and their performance in different clinical scenarios can be visualized as follows.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Research

Item	Function in PCD Diagnostics
Electrochemical nNO Analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino/Vero)	Measures nasal nitric oxide levels for non-invasive screening; requires standardized protocol (tidal breathing/oral exhalation against resistance) [16].
High-Speed Video Microscope (e.g., Keyence Motion Analyzer)	Visualizes and analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern (dyskinesia, immotility) from nasal brushings [16].
Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)	Identifies ultrastructural defects in cilia (e.g., absent dynein arms, disrupted microtubules); considered a diagnostic standard [16] [44].
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Gene Panels	Detects pathogenic mutations in over 50 known PCD-related genes; crucial for genetic confirmation and correlating genotype-phenotype [16] [33].
Nasal Brushing Biopsy Kit	Obtains ciliated epithelial cells from the inferior nasal turbinate for HSVM, TEM, and cell culture [16].

The comparative analysis of PCD predictive tools reveals that the Clinical Index (CI) demonstrates strong predictive value with the advantage of not requiring investigations for cardiac or laterality defects, making it broadly applicable [16] [46]. PICADAR is a valuable tool, particularly for patients with the classic phenotype including laterality defects, but its sensitivity drops significantly in patients with situs solitus or non-hallmark ultrastructural defects, and it cannot be used for patients without a chronic wet cough [16] [5]. The NA-CDCF provides a simpler clinical framework but was outperformed by the CI in a direct comparison [16].

For clinical practice and research, a combination of a sensitive clinical index and nNO measurement represents the most robust strategy for identifying patients who require definitive testing with advanced modalities like TEM and genetic studies. Future efforts should focus on developing and validating more inclusive predictive tools that capture the full spectrum of PCD, including patients with non-classic presentations.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting motile cilia, with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 7,554 people [55]. Diagnosis remains challenging due to non-specific symptoms and the unavailability of a single gold standard test [56]. Two established approaches guide referral for definitive testing: the PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) clinical prediction tool and nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) measurement. PICADAR uses seven clinical parameters to calculate a risk score, while nNO measurement leverages the characteristically low nNO levels in PCD patients [1]. With over 50 identified causative genes and the rapid advancement of genetic sequencing technologies, genetic testing is increasingly integral to PCD diagnosis [55]. This review examines the performance of PICADAR and nNO, and explores the transformative potential of next-generation algorithms that integrate clinical features, nNO, and genetic testing.

Comparative Analysis of Established Diagnostic Tools

PICADAR: A Clinical Prediction Rule

The PICADAR tool is designed for patients with persistent wet cough and assesses seven clinical parameters: full-term gestation, neonatal chest symptoms, neonatal intensive care unit admission, situs inversus, congenital cardiac defect, chronic rhinitis, and chronic ear symptoms [1]. Each parameter contributes a weighted score, and the sum indicates the probability of PCD.

Table 1: PICADAR Score Components and Weighting

Clinical Parameter	Score
Situs Inversus	2 points
Congenital Cardiac Defect	2 points
Neonatal Chest Symptoms	1 point
Admission to Neonatal Unit	1 point
Chronic Rhinitis	1 point
Ear Symptoms	1 point
Full-Term Gestation	1 point

In validation studies, a PICADAR score cut-off of ≥5 points demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.88-1.00 and a specificity of 0.75-0.89 for identifying PCD [4] [1]. The tool's performance remains robust in external validation, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.87 [1]. A modified PICADAR score also showed high discriminative value, with patients with PCD having a significantly higher mean score (5±2) compared to those without PCD (1±1) [4].

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement

Nasal NO measurement is a well-established screening test for PCD, as patients typically have markedly low nNO levels. The test is highly sensitive and specific when performed according to international guidelines.

Table 2: Diagnostic Accuracy of nNO at Different Cut-off Values

nNO Cut-off (nl/min)	Sensitivity	Specificity	Study/Context
77	0.94	0.82	International reference [3]
77	0.86 (Best)	0.91 (Best)	Chinese population [56]
100	1.00	0.73	High-sensitivity screening [3]
30	0.91	0.95	High-specificity screening [3]

A study on adults with bronchiectasis found a mean nNO concentration of 25 nl/min in the PCD group compared to 227 nl/min in the non-PCD group, with 77 nl/min being the most discriminative cut-off value [4]. The choice of cut-off value allows clinicians to prioritize high sensitivity (e.g., 100 nl/min) or high specificity (e.g., 30 nl/min) depending on the clinical scenario [3].

Direct Comparison and Synergistic Use

While both are valuable screening tools, PICADAR and nNO have distinct strengths. PICADAR relies on clinical history, which can be subject to recall bias, especially in older patients [56]. nNO measurement requires specialized equipment and patient cooperation, and can be unreliable during active respiratory infections [16]. Research demonstrates that using these tools in combination significantly improves screening performance. One study showed that using a PICADAR score >5 or an nNO level below 100 nl/min achieved 100% sensitivity, ensuring no PCD cases were missed [3]. This synergistic effect makes the combination a powerful strategy for selecting patients for definitive diagnostic testing.

The Growing Role of Genetic Testing

Genetic testing has moved to the forefront of PCD diagnostics, with the potential to confirm the diagnosis in up to 90% of cases [55]. Three main sequencing approaches are used: targeted gene panels, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

Table 3: Genetic Testing Modalities for PCD

Testing Modality	Advantages	Disadvantages	Diagnostic Yield
Targeted Gene Panel	Lower cost, focused analysis	Limited to known genes, slow updating	~67.6% (for 26+ gene panel) [56]
Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES)	Unbiased, detects novel genes	Higher cost, identifies variants of unknown significance (VUS)	73.1% [56]
Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)	Comprehensive, detects structural variants	Highest cost, complex data analysis	Up to 90% (estimated) [55]

A study of 26 Chinese patients utilized a strategy of WES and/or low-pass WGS, achieving a 73.1% detection rate of biallelic pathogenic mutations [56]. This "no-bias" approach is particularly valuable given the extensive genetic heterogeneity of PCD, where many patients have private mutations never before detected [55]. Beyond diagnosis, genetic testing enables the identification of genotype-phenotype relationships. For instance, mutations in CCDC39 and CCDC40 are linked to more severe lung disease, while mutations in DNAH11 are associated with preserved lung function and a lower incidence of neonatal respiratory distress [55].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for PICADAR Assessment

• Patient Interview: Conduct a structured clinical interview with the patient or caregiver.
• Medical Record Review: Verify historical data, especially neonatal history, through medical records.
• Score Calculation: For patients with persistent wet cough, assess and score the seven parameters. A total score is calculated by summing the points (see Table 1).
• Clinical Decision: Refer patients with a score of ≥5 for definitive PCD testing (e.g., transmission electron microscopy or genetic testing) [1].

Protocol for Nasal NO Measurement

• Patient Preparation: The test is suitable for patients older than 3-5 years who are free of acute respiratory infections. Avoid testing within 4-6 weeks of an exacerbation.
• Equipment Setup: Use an electrochemical analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino or Niox Vero) calibrated according to manufacturer instructions.
• Measurement Technique: With the patient seated, insert a nasal olive probe into one nostril. Aspirate nasal air at a passive sampling flow rate of 0.3 L/min (5 mL/s). Ensure the velum is closed, which can be achieved by exhaling against resistance or during tidal breathing.
• Data Recording: Record the nNO concentration in parts per billion (ppb) or nl/min once a stable plateau is reached. Repeat if necessary.
• Interpretation: Compare the result to established cut-off values (e.g., <77 nl/min is highly suggestive of PCD in a clinically suspicious case) [56] [16].

Protocol for Genetic Analysis via WES/WGS

• DNA Extraction: Obtain genomic DNA from a peripheral blood sample or saliva.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Fragment the DNA and prepare a sequencing library. Sequence the entire exome (WES) or genome (WGS) using a next-generation sequencing platform.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Align sequences to a human reference genome. Use annotation tools to identify variants (single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions).
• Variant Filtering & Prioritization:
  • Filter for variants in a known panel of >50 PCD-associated genes.
  • Prioritize loss-of-function and predicted damaging missense variants.
  • Check population frequency databases to exclude common polymorphisms.
  • Analyze for biallelic (or hemizygous for X-linked) inheritance.
• Validation: Confirm pathogenic mutations using an independent method like Sanger sequencing.
• Interpretation: Classify variants according to international guidelines (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of unknown significance). A definitive genetic diagnosis requires biallelic pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations in a PCD-associated gene [56] [55].

The Next-Generation Integrated Diagnostic Algorithm

The future of PCD diagnosis lies in integrated, sequential algorithms that combine the strengths of clinical prediction, functional testing, and genetic analysis. This approach maximizes diagnostic yield while optimizing resource allocation.

• Figure 1: A proposed next-generation integrated diagnostic algorithm for PCD. This sequential approach leverages the high sensitivity of combined PICADAR and nNO screening to select patients for comprehensive genetic testing, with multidisciplinary review for inconclusive cases. TEM, Transmission Electron Microscopy; HSVA, High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis; IF, Immunofluorescence.

This algorithm begins with broad, sensitive screening to select high-probability patients for more specific and costly genetic testing. This is cost-effective and practical for widespread implementation. For cases where genetic results are inconclusive (e.g., variants of unknown significance or no identified mutations in known genes), the algorithm incorporates a multidisciplinary review. This review can leverage other definitive techniques like transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to identify ultrastructural defects or high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA) to assess ciliary beat pattern and frequency [56] [55] [16]. This integrated model ensures a conclusive diagnosis for the maximum number of patients.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for PCD Diagnostic Research

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzer (e.g., Niox Mino/Vero)	Measures nNO concentration for PCD screening.	Requires standardized protocol (flow rate, velum closure); results are age-dependent [16].
Nasal Brushing Brush (e.g., cytology brush)	Obtains ciliated epithelial cell samples from the inferior turbinate.	Essential for HSVA, TEM, cell culture; must be performed by trained personnel [16].
Next-Generation Sequencer (e.g., Illumina platforms)	Performs high-throughput WES or WGS for genetic diagnosis.	Enables unbiased detection of mutations in >50 PCD genes; requires robust bioinformatics pipeline [56] [55].
Transmission Electron Microscope	Visualizes ciliary ultrastructure (e.g., dynein arm defects).	Considered a historical gold standard; can be normal in ~30% of PCD cases [56] [55].
High-Speed Video Microscope	Records and analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern.	Requires immediate analysis of fresh samples; expertise needed to distinguish primary from secondary dyskinesia [56] [16].
PCD Gene Panel (Bioinformatic or wet-lab)	Targeted analysis of known PCD-associated genes.	Can be part of WES analysis; faster and cheaper but lower yield than comprehensive WES/WGS [56] [55].
Immunofluorescence Antibodies	Detects absence or mislocalization of specific ciliary proteins.	Useful for validating genetic findings (e.g., absence of DNAH5 protein); high specificity but variable sensitivity [56] [55].

The diagnostic journey for PCD is evolving from reliance on single tools toward a multi-modal approach. PICADAR and nNO measurement are highly effective, synergistic screening tools for identifying patients at high risk. Genetic testing, particularly through WES and WGS, is now a powerful confirmatory tool that can establish a diagnosis in most cases and inform prognosis. The future of PCD diagnostics lies in integrated, sequential algorithms that efficiently combine these modalities. Such next-generation pathways will reduce diagnostic delays, enhance access to accurate diagnosis, and form the foundation for personalized medicine and future gene-based therapies.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of PICADAR and nNO measurement reveals that neither tool is a perfect standalone solution for PCD screening, but each holds distinct value within a multi-modal diagnostic framework. PICADAR serves as an accessible, low-cost initial clinical filter, though its variable sensitivity necessitates caution, especially in patients without laterality defects. nNO provides an objective, rapid measurement but requires careful interpretation with device-specific and phenotype-adjusted cut-offs, particularly for the growing subset of PCD patients with normal ultrastructure. For researchers and drug developers, this underscores the critical need for genotype-phenotype correlations in clinical trial design and patient stratification. Future efforts must focus on developing and validating next-generation algorithms that seamlessly integrate clinical scores, biophysical measurements like nNO, and genetic data to achieve earlier, more accurate diagnosis and pave the way for targeted therapies.

References

• 1. a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26917608/]
• 2. a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4819882/]
• 3. Effective patient selection for PCD diagnostics; the PICADAR ... [https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/48/suppl60/PA3124]
• 4. Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement and a Modified PICADAR ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28783864/]
• 5. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336363v1]
• 6. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ... [https://labs.sciety.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.1101/2025.09.22.25336363]
• 7. Analysis of the clinical features of Japanese patients with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0385814621002248]
• 8. Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6993796/]
• 9. Electrochemical nasal nitric oxide measurement during ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12598594/]
• 10. Computational modeling of nasal nitric oxide flux from the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482521005175]
• 11. Lessons From Unilateral Loss of Cilia: Early Nasal Nitric ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5734436/]
• 12. The Challenges of Diagnosing Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3209576/]
• 13. The global prevalence and ethnic heterogeneity of primary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213260021004537]
• 14. The global prevalence and ethnic heterogeneity of primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9064931/]
• 15. The global prevalence and ethnic heterogeneity of primary ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35051411/]
• 16. Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for Primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8232329/]
• 17. Diagnosing PCD [https://www.pcdfoundation.org/diagnosis/]
• 18. Diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5584715/]
• 19. [PDF] Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. An Official ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Diagnosis-of-Primary-Ciliary-Dyskinesia.-An-Society-Shapiro-Davis/ecc1a8f64a18fc941903113cfcd11d2db5faf07b]
• 20. Events [http://beat-pcd.squarespace.com/events]
• 21. Role of Nasal Nitric Oxide in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/22/16159]
• 22. Evaluation of screening tools for primary ciliary dyskinesia ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11229824/]
• 23. The Utility of Nasal Nitric Oxide in the Diagnostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11058016/]
• 24. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia—Current Diagnostic and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12525432/]
• 25. Nasal nitric oxide measurement for the diagnosis of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12171850/]
• 26. Feasibility of nasal NO screening in healthy newborns - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9292553/]
• 27. Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurements During Tidal Breathing [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12117282/]
• 28. Hand-Held Tidal Breathing Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057262]
• 29. Device comparison study to measure nasal nitric oxide in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38088381/]
• 30. Comparative validation of handheld fractional exhaled ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40289685/]
• 31. Effective patient selection for PCD diagnostics; the PICADAR score with nasal nitric oxide | European Respiratory Society [https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/48/suppl60/pa3124]
• 32. Methods to Detect Nitric Oxide and its Metabolites in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2041919/]
• 33. Primary ciliary dyskinesia: A review [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950008725000420]
• 34. the PICADAR score with nasal nitric oxide [https://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA3124]
• 35. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1691758/full]
• 36. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia - GeneReviews® - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1122/]
• 37. Limitations of Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35202559/]
• 38. Ciliary Ultrastructure Assessed by Transmission Electron ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/12/22/2651]
• 39. European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41005984/]
• 40. Webinars — BEAT-PCD [http://beat-pcd.squarespace.com/training-schools]
• 41. Diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia: discrepancy according ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8558472/]
• 42. PICADAR: a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary ... [https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/47/4/1103]
• 43. Impact of Seasonal Variability in Nasal Nitric Oxide ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41022559/]
• 44. Prevalence of primary ciliary dyskinesia in consecutive ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2016263]
• 45. The utility of nasal nitric oxide in the diagnostic evaluation of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38380959/]
• 46. Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/6/1088]
• 47. Accuracy of Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement as a Diagnostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6137897/]
• 48. Summary for Clinicians: Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7336768/]
• 49. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia | Sciety Labs (Experimental) [https://sciety-labs.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.1101/2025.09.22.25336363]
• 50. PICADAR A Diagnostic Predictive Tool For Primary Ciliary ... [https://www.scribd.com/document/897373060/PICADAR-a-diagnostic-predictive-tool-for-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia]
• 51. Empowering limited-resource countries: collaborating with ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1547152/full]
• 52. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia—Current Diagnostic and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/19/6808]
• 53. a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://www.academia.edu/55769744/PICADAR_a_diagnostic_predictive_tool_for_primary_ciliary_dyskinesia]
• 54. Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34198708/]
• 55. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: Integrating Genetics into ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13665-023-00332-x]
• 56. Clinical characteristics and genetic spectrum of 26 individuals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8252271/]