A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques
A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/a:1009982611386
复制
发表时间：
1999-02-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Critchley, JAJH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Critchley, LAH;Critchley, JAJH
导论.当比较测量技术时，偏差和精度统计已经成功地进行了回归分析。然而，当应用于心输出量测量时，在报告这种分析形式的结果时会出现不一致。方法.从1986年开始进行MEDLINE检索。调查了使用偏倚和精度统计比较心输出量测量技术的研究。根据试验方法和参考方法中的误差百分比构建误差图，并用于确定方法之间一致性的可接受限度。结果共找到25篇文章，统计数据的呈现方式差异很大。使用四种不同的统计参数来描述测量之间的一致性。评价生物阻抗的研究（n = 23）的总体一致性限度为+/-37%（15-82%），评价多普勒超声的研究（n = 11）为+/-65%（25-225%）。只有44%的文章给出了用于评估结果的客观标准。这些是（i）接近+/-15-20%的一致性限度，（ii）小于1 L/min的一致性限度，以及（iii）超过75%的偏倚测量值在平均值的+/-20%范围内。通过图形，我们表明高达+/-30%的一致性限度是可接受的。结论.当使用偏差和精确度统计数据时，应列出心输出量、偏差、一致性限和百分比误差。使用当前的参考方法，新技术的接受应依赖于高达+/-30%的一致性限度。
Introduction. Bias and precision statistics have succeeded regression analysis when measurement techniques are compared. However, when applied to cardiac output measurements, inconsistencies occur in reporting the results of this form of analysis. Methods. A MEDLINE search was performed, dating from 1986. Studies comparing techniques of cardiac output measurement using bias and precision statistics were surveyed. An error-gram was constructed from the percentage errors in the test and reference methods and was used to determine acceptable limits of agreement between methods. Results. Twenty-five articles were found. Presentation of statistical data varied greatly. Four different statistical parameters were used to describe the agreement between measurements. The overall limits of agreement in studies evaluating bioimpedance (n = 23) was +/-37% (15-82%) and in those evaluating Doppler ultrasound (n = 11) +/-65% (25-225%). Objective criteria used to assess outcome were given in only 44% of the articles. These were (i) limits of agreement approaching +/-15-20%, (ii) limits of agreement of less than 1 L/min, and (iii) more than 75% of bias measurements within +/-20% of the mean. Graphically, we showed that limits of agreement of up to +/-30% were acceptable. Conclusions. When using bias and precision statistics, cardiac output, bias, limits of agreement, and percentage error should be presented. Using current reference methods, acceptance of a new technique should rely on limits of agreement of up to +/-30%.