Article

Agreed Statistics Measurement Method Comparison

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom.
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 11/2011; 116(1):182-5. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31823d7784
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. By J. Martin Bland, Douglas G. Altman. Lancet 1986; 1(8476):307-10. Abstract reprinted with permission of Elsevier, copyright 1986. In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analyzed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.

0 Followers
 · 
157 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate and validate the reproducibility of MR Elastography (MRE)-derived liver stiffness values on two different MR vendor platforms performed on the same subject on the same day. This investigation was approved by the hospital IRB. MRE exams were performed twice in identical fashion in eight volunteers and in five clinical patients on two different 1.5 T MR scanners-once on a Philips MR scanner and immediately afterward in back-to-back fashion on a General Electric MR scanner, or vice versa. All scan parameters were kept identical on the two platforms to the best extent possible. After the MRE magnitude and phase images were obtained, the data were converted into quantitative images displaying the stiffness of the liver parenchyma. Mean liver stiffness values between the two platforms were compared using interclass correlation with a p value <0.05 considered statistically significant. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value of 0.994 was obtained for 13 subjects with p value <0.001 indicating a significantly positive correlation. As MRE gains in acceptance and as its availability becomes more widespread, it is important to ascertain and confirm that liver stiffness values obtained on different MRE vendor platforms are consistent and reproducible. In this small pilot investigation, we demonstrate that liver stiffness measurement with MRE is reproducible and has very good consistency across two vendor platforms.
    Abdominal Imaging 12/2014; 40(4). DOI:10.1007/s00261-014-0282-y · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Septic shock is a serious medical condition. With increased concerns about invasive techniques, a number of non-invasive and semi-invasive devices measuring cardiac output (CO) have become commercially available. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy, precision and trending abilities of the FloTrac and the continuous pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution technique determining CO in septic shock patients. Consecutive septic shock patients were included in two centres and CO was measured every 4 h up to 48 h by FloTrac (APCO) and by pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) using the continuous (CCO) and intermittent (ICO) technique. Forty-seven septic shock patients with 326 matched sets of APCO, CCO and ICO data were available for analysis. Bland and Altman analysis revealed a mean bias ±2 SD of 0.0 ± 2.14 L min(-1) for APCO-ICO (%error = 34.5 %) and 0.23 ± 2.55 L min(-1) for CCO-ICO (%error = 40.4 %). Trend analysis showed a concordance of 85 and 81 % for APCO and CCO, respectively. In contrast to CCO, APCO was influenced by systemic vascular resistance and by mean arterial pressure. In septic shock patients, APCO measurements assessed by FloTrac but also the established CCO measurements using the PAC did not meet the currently accepted statistical criteria indicating acceptable clinical performance.
    Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10877-015-9672-0 · 1.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An ankle-brachial index (ABI) is determined by comparing blood pressures of the extremities. No study that compared the blood pressure measurements obtained by standard or vascular cuffs was found. This study investigated the reliability of ABI measures using standard and vascular pressure cuffs. Two raters measured 480 systolic blood pressures of 10 healthy participants using standard and vascular cuffs. Intrarater reliability for standard cuffs was weak (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.42–0.63) and moderate to strong for vascular cuffs (ICC = 0.70–0.87). Interrater reliability was moderate to strong for both standard and vascular cuffs (ICC = 0.83–0.96). Reliability of ABI measures with vascular cuffs was moderate to strong. The results of this study suggest and recommend the vascular cuff for accurate measures to determine reliable ABI values. If a standard cuff is used, the blood pressure should be measured twice and averaged for the ABI calculation.
    Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 01/2013; 29(3):195-202. DOI:10.1097/TGR.0b013e31828aee0d · 0.14 Impact Factor