Should we use criteria or eyeballing to reject post‐interruption tracings?

During the analysis of interrupter resistance (Rint)‐measurements, most authors reject post‐interruption tracings based on the shape of the pressure‐time and flow‐time curves. However, objective criteria for rejection are lacking. We aimed to formulate explicit rejection criteria that correspond to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pediatric pulmonology 2006-10, Vol.41 (10), p.937-946
Main Authors: Veugelers, Rebekka, Penning, Corine, Grootscholten, Stefan P.J., Merkus, Peter J.F.M., Arets, Hubertus G.M., Rieken, Rob, Brussee, Jessica E., Jilderda‐Janssen, Mayke, Tibboel, Dick, Evenhuis, Heleen M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Airway Resistance
Biological and medical sciences
Cerebral Palsy - physiopathology
Child
Decision Making
eyeballing
Female
Forced Expiratory Flow Rates
General aspects
Humans
interruption technique
inter‐observer variability
Lung - physiopathology
Male
Medical sciences
Observer Variation
Pneumology
Practice Guidelines as Topic
pressure curve
Reference Standards
rejection criteria
Reproducibility of Results
Respiratory Function Tests - methods
Respiratory Function Tests - standards
respiratory resistance
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:During the analysis of interrupter resistance (Rint)‐measurements, most authors reject post‐interruption tracings based on the shape of the pressure‐time and flow‐time curves. However, objective criteria for rejection are lacking. We aimed to formulate explicit rejection criteria that correspond to eyeballing the curve pattern (daily practice), in order to simplify the analysis. Inter‐observer agreement within and between both methods was studied. Results obtained with the developed rejection criteria were compared to those of current practice (eyeballing) using 54 measurements (807 interruptions) of children with severe neurological impairment. Inter‐observer agreement on rejection was similar using the criteria or eyeballing (85.6% vs. 82.8%). Using the criteria, more individual interruptions were rejected (43.4% vs. 29.8% using eyeballing), while discarding total measurements (
ISSN:8755-6863
1099-0496
DOI:10.1002/ppul.20471