Carolyn L Chen, Mandy L Wallace, Rachel A Reed, Janet A Grimes
{"title":"与压力测量设备相关的准确度、精确度以及观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性。","authors":"Carolyn L Chen, Mandy L Wallace, Rachel A Reed, Janet A Grimes","doi":"10.1111/vsu.14027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy, precision, and observer agreement of three pressure measurement devices.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>In vitro model study.</p><p><strong>Sample population: </strong>Water manometer with built-in gauge (WMg), arterial pressure transducer (APT), and Compass CT (CCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The model was set to five predetermined pressures (4, 8, 13, 17, and 24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O) using a water manometer with a ruler (WMr) as the gold standard. Each device was tested at each pressure in a randomized order by three investigators. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between devices. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for interobserver and intraobserver agreements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean differences (cm H<sub>2</sub>O) ± SEM in comparison with the set pressure were -0.020 ± 0.010 (WMg), -0.390 ± 0.077 (APT), and -1.267 ± 0.213 (CCT). Pressures measured by WMg did not differ from those measured by WMr. Pressures measured by all devices did not differ from each other (p > .062 for all comparisons). Interobserver agreement was excellent (1.000), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (0.985, 0.990, 0.998 for each observer).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the WMr, the WMg was the most accurate and precise, followed by the APT; the CCT was the least accurate and precise. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements for all three devices were excellent.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The largest mean difference of all devices was within 1.3 cm H<sub>2</sub>O of the set pressure, indicating possible clinical utility of any of the devices. However, WMr or WMg should be considered first due to their high precision and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23667,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy, precision, and interobserver and intraobserver agreements related to pressure-measurement devices.\",\"authors\":\"Carolyn L Chen, Mandy L Wallace, Rachel A Reed, Janet A Grimes\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vsu.14027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy, precision, and observer agreement of three pressure measurement devices.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>In vitro model study.</p><p><strong>Sample population: </strong>Water manometer with built-in gauge (WMg), arterial pressure transducer (APT), and Compass CT (CCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The model was set to five predetermined pressures (4, 8, 13, 17, and 24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O) using a water manometer with a ruler (WMr) as the gold standard. Each device was tested at each pressure in a randomized order by three investigators. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between devices. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for interobserver and intraobserver agreements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean differences (cm H<sub>2</sub>O) ± SEM in comparison with the set pressure were -0.020 ± 0.010 (WMg), -0.390 ± 0.077 (APT), and -1.267 ± 0.213 (CCT). Pressures measured by WMg did not differ from those measured by WMr. Pressures measured by all devices did not differ from each other (p > .062 for all comparisons). Interobserver agreement was excellent (1.000), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (0.985, 0.990, 0.998 for each observer).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the WMr, the WMg was the most accurate and precise, followed by the APT; the CCT was the least accurate and precise. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements for all three devices were excellent.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The largest mean difference of all devices was within 1.3 cm H<sub>2</sub>O of the set pressure, indicating possible clinical utility of any of the devices. However, WMr or WMg should be considered first due to their high precision and accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14027\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy, precision, and interobserver and intraobserver agreements related to pressure-measurement devices.
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy, precision, and observer agreement of three pressure measurement devices.
Study design: In vitro model study.
Sample population: Water manometer with built-in gauge (WMg), arterial pressure transducer (APT), and Compass CT (CCT).
Methods: The model was set to five predetermined pressures (4, 8, 13, 17, and 24 cm H2O) using a water manometer with a ruler (WMr) as the gold standard. Each device was tested at each pressure in a randomized order by three investigators. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between devices. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for interobserver and intraobserver agreements.
Results: The mean differences (cm H2O) ± SEM in comparison with the set pressure were -0.020 ± 0.010 (WMg), -0.390 ± 0.077 (APT), and -1.267 ± 0.213 (CCT). Pressures measured by WMg did not differ from those measured by WMr. Pressures measured by all devices did not differ from each other (p > .062 for all comparisons). Interobserver agreement was excellent (1.000), and intraobserver agreement was excellent (0.985, 0.990, 0.998 for each observer).
Conclusion: Compared to the WMr, the WMg was the most accurate and precise, followed by the APT; the CCT was the least accurate and precise. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements for all three devices were excellent.
Clinical significance: The largest mean difference of all devices was within 1.3 cm H2O of the set pressure, indicating possible clinical utility of any of the devices. However, WMr or WMg should be considered first due to their high precision and accuracy.
期刊介绍:
Veterinary Surgery, the official publication of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and European College of Veterinary Surgeons, is a source of up-to-date coverage of surgical and anesthetic management of animals, addressing significant problems in veterinary surgery with relevant case histories and observations.
It contains original, peer-reviewed articles that cover developments in veterinary surgery, and presents the most current review of the field, with timely articles on surgical techniques, diagnostic aims, care of infections, and advances in knowledge of metabolism as it affects the surgical patient. The journal places new developments in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary to help better understand and evaluate the surgical patient.