踝臂指数自动测量方法的验证

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855
Fatima Zebari, Vishal Amlani, M. Langenskiöld, J. Nordanstig
{"title":"踝臂指数自动测量方法的验证","authors":"Fatima Zebari, Vishal Amlani, M. Langenskiöld, J. Nordanstig","doi":"10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective. Lower extremity atherosclerotic disease (LEAD) diagnosis is largely based on ankle-brachial index (ABI) recordings. Equipment that could automatically determine ABI may facilitate LEAD identification within a broad range of health services. We aimed to test the measurement properties of an automated oscillometric ABI measurement device (MESI ABPI MD®) as compared to manual reference ABI measurements in patients with and without LEAD. Design. A total of 153 patients with and without LEAD visiting a vascular surgery clinic underwent manual and automated ABI measurements. In total, 306 limbs were investigated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the automated ABI device overall validity, with the manual method as reference. Correlation analysis (Spearman) was used to assess patterns of correlation between measurement methods while Bland–Altman plots were used to quantify measurement agreement. Results. Sensitivity and specificity for the automated ABI device were 75 and 67% whereas PPV and NPV were 72 and 71%, respectively. The correlation coefficient (automated versus manual measurements) was r = 0.552, p < .01. Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias and a tendency by the automated device to overestimate lower ABI values and underestimate higher ABI values. The best agreement between automated and manual ABI recordings was observed within the normal ABI range. Conclusions. The ABPI MD® device performance was unfavorable. The automated device tended to overestimate lower ABI values while underestimating higher values, which may lead to underdiagnosis of LEAD. Our data do not support the use of this automated ABI measurement device in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of an automated measurement method for determination of the ankle-brachial index\",\"authors\":\"Fatima Zebari, Vishal Amlani, M. Langenskiöld, J. Nordanstig\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective. Lower extremity atherosclerotic disease (LEAD) diagnosis is largely based on ankle-brachial index (ABI) recordings. Equipment that could automatically determine ABI may facilitate LEAD identification within a broad range of health services. We aimed to test the measurement properties of an automated oscillometric ABI measurement device (MESI ABPI MD®) as compared to manual reference ABI measurements in patients with and without LEAD. Design. A total of 153 patients with and without LEAD visiting a vascular surgery clinic underwent manual and automated ABI measurements. In total, 306 limbs were investigated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the automated ABI device overall validity, with the manual method as reference. Correlation analysis (Spearman) was used to assess patterns of correlation between measurement methods while Bland–Altman plots were used to quantify measurement agreement. Results. Sensitivity and specificity for the automated ABI device were 75 and 67% whereas PPV and NPV were 72 and 71%, respectively. The correlation coefficient (automated versus manual measurements) was r = 0.552, p < .01. Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias and a tendency by the automated device to overestimate lower ABI values and underestimate higher ABI values. The best agreement between automated and manual ABI recordings was observed within the normal ABI range. Conclusions. The ABPI MD® device performance was unfavorable. The automated device tended to overestimate lower ABI values while underestimating higher values, which may lead to underdiagnosis of LEAD. Our data do not support the use of this automated ABI measurement device in clinical practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要目标。下肢动脉粥样硬化性疾病(LEAD)的诊断主要基于踝臂指数(ABI)记录。可以自动确定ABI的设备可以在广泛的医疗服务中促进LEAD识别。我们的目的是测试自动示波ABI测量设备(MESI ABPI MD®)与手动参考ABI测量相比,在患有和不患有LEAD的患者中的测量特性。设计共有153名患有和不患有LEAD的患者在血管外科诊所接受了手动和自动ABI测量。总共调查了306条肢体。以手动方法为参考,计算灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV),以评估自动ABI装置的总体有效性。相关性分析(Spearman)用于评估测量方法之间的相关性模式,而Bland–Altman图用于量化测量一致性。后果自动ABI装置的灵敏度和特异性分别为75%和67%,而PPV和NPV分别为72%和71%。相关系数(自动测量与手动测量)为r = 0.552,p < .01.Bland-Altman图揭示了比例偏差和自动化设备高估较低ABI值和低估较高ABI值的趋势。在正常ABI范围内观察到自动和手动ABI记录之间的最佳一致性。结论。ABPI MD®装置性能不佳。自动化设备往往高估了较低的ABI值,而低估了较高的值,这可能导致lead的诊断不足。我们的数据不支持在临床实践中使用这种自动ABI测量设备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation of an automated measurement method for determination of the ankle-brachial index
Abstract Objective. Lower extremity atherosclerotic disease (LEAD) diagnosis is largely based on ankle-brachial index (ABI) recordings. Equipment that could automatically determine ABI may facilitate LEAD identification within a broad range of health services. We aimed to test the measurement properties of an automated oscillometric ABI measurement device (MESI ABPI MD®) as compared to manual reference ABI measurements in patients with and without LEAD. Design. A total of 153 patients with and without LEAD visiting a vascular surgery clinic underwent manual and automated ABI measurements. In total, 306 limbs were investigated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the automated ABI device overall validity, with the manual method as reference. Correlation analysis (Spearman) was used to assess patterns of correlation between measurement methods while Bland–Altman plots were used to quantify measurement agreement. Results. Sensitivity and specificity for the automated ABI device were 75 and 67% whereas PPV and NPV were 72 and 71%, respectively. The correlation coefficient (automated versus manual measurements) was r = 0.552, p < .01. Bland-Altman plots revealed proportional bias and a tendency by the automated device to overestimate lower ABI values and underestimate higher ABI values. The best agreement between automated and manual ABI recordings was observed within the normal ABI range. Conclusions. The ABPI MD® device performance was unfavorable. The automated device tended to overestimate lower ABI values while underestimating higher values, which may lead to underdiagnosis of LEAD. Our data do not support the use of this automated ABI measurement device in clinical practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Prevalence and predictors of hand hygiene compliance in clinical, surgical and intensive care unit wards: results of a second cross-sectional study at the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1