Cargando…

The Preventiometer - reliability of a cardiovascular multi-device measurement platform and its measurement agreement with a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Multimedia multi-device measurement platforms may make the assessment of prevention-related medical variables with a focus on cardiovascular outcomes more attractive and time-efficient. The aim of the studies was to evaluate the reliability (Study 1) and the measurement agreement with a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Junge, Martin, Krüger, Markus, Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L., Bauer, Brent A., Dörr, Marcus, Bahls, Martin, Chenot, Jean-François, Biffar, Reiner, Schmidt, Carsten O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37095457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01911-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Multimedia multi-device measurement platforms may make the assessment of prevention-related medical variables with a focus on cardiovascular outcomes more attractive and time-efficient. The aim of the studies was to evaluate the reliability (Study 1) and the measurement agreement with a cohort study (Study 2) of selected measures of such a device, the Preventiometer. METHODS: In Study 1 (N = 75), we conducted repeated measurements in two Preventiometers for four examinations (blood pressure measurement, pulse oximetry, body fat measurement, and spirometry) to analyze their agreement and derive (retest-)reliability estimates. In Study 2 (N = 150), we compared somatometry, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, body fat, and spirometry measurements in the Preventiometer with corresponding measurements used in the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) to evaluate measurement agreement. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations coefficients (ICCs) ranged from .84 to .99 for all examinations in Study 1. Whereas bias was not an issue for most examinations in Study 2, limits of agreement for most examinations were very large compared to results of similar method comparison studies. CONCLUSION: We observed a high retest-reliability of the assessed clinical examinations in the Preventiometer. Some disagreements between Preventiometer and SHIP examinations can be attributed to procedural differences in the examinations. Methodological and technical improvements are recommended before using the Preventiometer in population-based research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01911-x.