Background Transcutaneous bilirubinometry is a widely used screening method for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. Deviation of the transcutaneous bilirubin concentration (TcB) from the total serum bilirubin concentration (TSB) is often ascribed to biological variation between patients, but variations between TcB meters may also have a role. This study aims to provide a systematic evaluation of the inter-device reproducibility of TcB meters. Materials and Methods Thirteen commercially available TcB meters (JM-105 and JM-103) were evaluated in vitro on phantoms that optically mimic neonatal skin. The mimicked TcB was varied within the clinical range (0.5–181.3 μmol/L). Results Absolute differences between TcB meter outcomes increased with the measured TcB, from a difference of 5.0 μmol/L (TcB = 0.5 μmol/L phantom) up to 65.0 μmol/L (TcB = 181.3 μmol/L phantom). Conclusion The inter-device reproducibility of the examined TcB meters is substantial and exceeds the specified accuracy of the device (±25.5 μmol/L), as well as the clinically used TcB safety margins (>50 µmol/L below phototherapy threshold). Healthcare providers should be well aware of this additional uncertainty in the TcB determination, especially when multiple TcB meters are employed in the same clinic. We strongly advise using a single TcB meter per patient to evaluate the TcB over time. Impact Key message: The inter-device reproducibility of TcB meters is substantial and exceeds the clinically used TcB safety margins.What this study adds to existing literature: The inter-device reproducibility of transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) meters has not been reported in the existing literature. This in vitro study systematically evaluates this inter-device reproducibility.Impact: This study aids in a better interpretation of the measured TcB value from a patient and is of particular importance during patient monitoring when using multiple TcB meters within the same clinical department. We strongly advise using a single TcB meter per patient to evaluate the TcB over time.

Pain scientists and clinicians search for objective measures of altered nociceptive processing to study and stratify chronic pain patients. Nociceptive processing can be studied by observing a combination of nociceptive detection thresholds and evoked potentials. However, it is unknown whether the nociceptive detection threshold measured using a Go-/No-Go (GN) procedure can be biased by a response criterion. In this study, we compared nociceptive detection thresholds, psychometric slopes and central evoked potentials obtained during a GN procedure with those obtained during a 2-interval forced choice (2IFC) procedure to determine 1) if the nociceptive detection threshold during a GN procedure is biased by a criterion and 2) to determine if nociceptive evoked potentials observed in response to stimuli around the detection threshold are biased by a criterion. We found that the detection threshold can be higher when assessed using a GN procedure in comparison with the 2IFC procedure. The average P2 component in the central evoked potential showed on-off behavior with respect to stimulus detection and increased proportionally with the detection probability during a GN procedure. These data suggest that nociceptive detection thresholds estimated using a GN procedure are subject to a response criterion.

No abstract

Pain scientists and clinicians search for objective measures of altered nociceptive processing to study and stratify chronic pain patients. Nociceptive processing can be studied by observing a combination of nociceptive detection thresholds and evoked potentials. However, it is unknown whether the nociceptive detection threshold measured using a go-/no-go (GN) procedure can be biased by a response criterion. In this study, we compared nociceptive detection thresholds, psychometric slopes, and central evoked potentials obtained during a GN procedure with those obtained during a two-interval forced choice (2IFC) procedure to determine (1) if the nociceptive detection threshold during a GN procedure is biased by a criterion and (2) to determine if nociceptive evoked potentials observed in response to stimuli around the detection threshold are biased by a criterion. We found that the detection threshold was higher when assessed using a GN procedure in comparison with the 2IFC procedure. During a GN procedure, the average P2 component increased proportionally when averaged with respect to detection probability, but showed on-off behavior when averaged with respect to stimulus detection. During a 2IFC procedure, the average P2 component increased nonlinearly when averaged with respect to detection probability. These data suggest that nociceptive detection thresholds estimated using a GN procedure are subject to a response criterion.