1999
DOI: 10.1023/a:1009982611386
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: 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%.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

14
337
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,172 publications
(353 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
14
337
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Limits of agreement were calculated arbitrarily as ±1.96 SD of the bias. The percentage error (1.96 SD/mean CO) was calculated according to Critchley and Critchley [10] for comparison of CO values. The precision of the reference PAC derived CO was measured within the study according to Cecconi et al [11] Data are given as mean and the 95% confidence interval of the mean or the SD as appropriate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Limits of agreement were calculated arbitrarily as ±1.96 SD of the bias. The percentage error (1.96 SD/mean CO) was calculated according to Critchley and Critchley [10] for comparison of CO values. The precision of the reference PAC derived CO was measured within the study according to Cecconi et al [11] Data are given as mean and the 95% confidence interval of the mean or the SD as appropriate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare CO measurement techniques, Critchley and colleagues [10] reported an overall mean CO of 4.86 L·min −1 from the 23 bioimpedance studies. The bioimpedance method was compared with thermodilution, dye dilution or the Fick method which was used mainly in children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To detect potential sources of inaccuracy, we compared the demographic and functional characteristics of two patient groups with better and worse agreement, respectively. A threshold CO bias of 1.5 liters/min (30% of the mean CO) was set to separate a group of outliers according to previous recommendations [27]. The univariate analysis revealed a significant influence of male gender, CO as measured by CMR, systolic blood pressure and body weight.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Application requires the difference to be independent of the mean, which had been tested using regression analysis in advance. For objective evaluation of the comparability, we used the approach of Critchley und Critchley [27], whereupon two methods for measurement of CO can be considered equivalent if the limits of agreement do not exceed ±30%. Outlier analysis was performed by Student’s t test, Mann-Whitney test and stepwise multiple regression.…”
Section: Methods and Subjectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This 95% confidence limit is just over 25% of the range [0, 4], which, being less than 30%, is considered an acceptable percentage value when introducing a new measurement technique in cardiology. 55 …”
Section: E Comparison Of Updrs and Dde Scores For Groups I And Ii Comentioning
confidence: 99%