Jensen Renee, Stanojevic Sanja, Klingel Michelle, Pizarro Maria Ester, Hall Graham L, Ramsey Kathryn, Foong Rachel, Saunders Clare, Robinson Paul D, Webster Hailey, Hardaker Kate, Kane Mica, Ratjen Felix
Division of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 15;11(6):e0157523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157523. eCollection 2016.
Accurate estimates of multiple breath washout (MBW) outcomes require correct operation of the device, appropriate distraction of the subject to ensure they breathe in a manner representative of their relaxed tidal breathing pattern, and appropriate interpretation of the acquired data. Based on available recommendations for an acceptable MBW test, we aimed to develop a protocol to systematically evaluate MBW measurements based on these criteria.
50 MBW test occasions were systematically reviewed for technical elements and whether the breathing pattern was representative of relaxed tidal breathing by an experienced MBW operator. The impact of qualitative and quantitative criteria on inter-observer agreement was assessed across eight MBW operators (n = 20 test occasions, compared using a Kappa statistic).
Using qualitative criteria, 46/168 trials were rejected: 16.6% were technically unacceptable and 10.7% were excluded due to inappropriate breathing pattern. Reviewer agreement was good using qualitative criteria and further improved with quantitative criteria from (κ = 0.53-0.83%) to (κ 0.73-0.97%), but at the cost of exclusion of further test occasions in this retrospective data analysis.
The application of the systematic review improved inter-observer agreement but did not affect reported MBW outcomes.
准确估计多次呼吸洗脱(MBW)结果需要设备的正确操作、受试者的适当分心以确保他们以代表其轻松潮式呼吸模式的方式呼吸,以及对采集数据的适当解读。基于可接受的MBW测试的现有建议,我们旨在制定一项协议,以根据这些标准系统地评估MBW测量值。
由一位经验丰富的MBW操作人员对50次MBW测试情况进行系统审查,检查技术要素以及呼吸模式是否代表轻松潮式呼吸。通过八位MBW操作人员评估定性和定量标准对观察者间一致性的影响(n = 20次测试情况,使用卡方统计量进行比较)。
使用定性标准,168次试验中有46次被拒绝:16.6%在技术上不可接受,10.7%因呼吸模式不合适而被排除。使用定性标准时观察者间一致性良好,使用定量标准时进一步提高,从(κ = 0.53 - 0.83%)提高到(κ = 0.73 - 0.97%),但在这项回顾性数据分析中以排除更多测试情况为代价。
系统评价的应用提高了观察者间的一致性,但未影响报告的MBW结果。