Comparing Methods of Measurement: An Alternative Approach

LaMantia, K. R.; O’Connor, Theresa; Barash, Paul G.

doi:10.1097/00000542-199005000-00001

Cited by 94 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several criteria were previously published to determine whether two techniques for CO measurement could be used equivalently [1,3,5]. The criteria state that the limits of agreement should not exceed a fixed acceptable difference [5].…”

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The criteria state that the limits of agreement should not exceed a fixed acceptable difference [5]. This difference has been estimated to 22 % [5], 30 % [3], 20 % or 1 L/min [3].…”

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The criteria state that the limits of agreement should not exceed a fixed acceptable difference [5]. This difference has been estimated to 22 % [5], 30 % [3], 20 % or 1 L/min [3]. To compare with these percentage criteria, the size of the limits of agreement (2s) was divided by the mean measured CO, equal to 2.56 L/min.…”

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While many comparison studies exist between CO measurement techniques [1][2][3][4], most of them do not use a reference technique, because it is uncertain whether such a technique exists [1][2][3]5]. This work being set in an experimental setting, it allowed the use of an ultrasound aortic flow probe, which represents the best available reference [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison between four techniques to measure cardiac output

Pironet

Dauby

Chase

et al. 2016

2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The criteria state that the limits of agreement should not exceed a fixed acceptable difference [5]. This difference has been estimated to 22 % [5], 30 % [3], 20 % or 1 L/min [3].…”

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Between Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison between four techniques to measure cardiac output

Pironet

Dauby

Chase

et al. 2016

2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, limits of agreement are also affected by the inaccuracies of the reference method and there is no consensus of opinion as to what limits are acceptable. La Mantia et al [22] did try to answer this question and they suggested that limits of up to Ϯ 20-30% seem acceptable. Also, cardiac output is not a static variable and shows physiological variation, such as that seen during respiration.…”

Section: A Summary Of Evaluation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impedance cardiographyThe impact of new technology

Critchley

1998

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe 1990s have witnessed major advances in impedance cardiography technology. Problems existed with the methods used to calculate cardiac output. Excessive lung fluid, as often found in critically ill patients, may also invalidate measurements. The signal processing and measurement techniques used in older systems were deficient. The newer systems, of which there are at least six, incorporate novel and improved signal processing techniques. They also offer analog visual displays, personal computer interfacing, sophisticated analytical software and haemodynamic patient management systems. Evaluation of these systems is difficult because no true 'gold standard' method of cardiac output measurement exists. When compared with thermodilution techniques, limits of agreement of Ϯ 20-30% seem acceptable. These limits can be achieved in normal subjects but not in critically ill patients. Validation data are available for only half of the new systems. Until recently, the main application for impedance cardiography has been research but improved accuracy should lead to increased clinical usage.

show abstract