Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAbbott, TEFen_US
dc.contributor.authorGooneratne, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorMcNeill, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorLevett, DZHen_US
dc.contributor.authorGrocott, MPWen_US
dc.contributor.authorSwart, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorMacDonald, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorARCTIC study investigatorsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-13T14:39:00Z
dc.date.available2017-11-15en_US
dc.date.issued2018-03en_US
dc.date.submitted2018-01-11T22:14:33.677Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/35023
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Despite the increasing importance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) for preoperative risk assessment, the reliability of CPET interpretation is unclear. We aimed to assess inter-observer reliability of preoperative CPET. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-centre, observational study of preoperative CPET interpretation. Participants were professionals with previous experience or training in CPET, assessed by a standardized questionnaire. Each participant interpreted 100 tests using standardized software. The CPET variables of interest were oxygen consumption at the anaerobic threshold (AT) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak). Inter-observer reliability was measured using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with a random effects model. Results are presented as ICC with 95% confidence interval, where ICC of 1 represents perfect agreement and ICC of 0 represents no agreement. RESULTS: Participants included 8/28 (28.6%) clinical physiologists, 10 (35.7%) junior doctors, and 10 (35.7%) consultant doctors. The median previous experience was 140 (inter-quartile range 55-700) CPETs. After excluding the first 10 tests (acclimatization) for each participant and missing data, the primary analysis of AT and VO2 peak included 2125 and 2414 tests, respectively. Inter-observer agreement for numerical values of AT [ICC 0.83 (0.75-0.90)] and VO2 peak [ICC 0.88 (0.84-0.92)] was good. In a post hoc analysis, inter-observer agreement for identification of the presence of a reportable AT was excellent [ICC 0.93 (0.91-0.95)] and a reportable VO2 peak was moderate [0.73 (0.64-0.80)]. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-observer reliability of interpretation of numerical values of two commonly used CPET variables was good (>80%). However, inter-observer agreement regarding the presence of a reportable value was less consistent.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipTEFA was supported by a Medical Research Council and British Journal of Anaesthesia clinical research training fellowship. AL was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Barts Health NHS Trust and a “SmartHeart” EPSRC programme grant (EP/P001009/1)en_US
dc.format.extent475 - 483en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBr J Anaesthen_US
dc.rights© 2017. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectcardiopulmonary exercise testingen_US
dc.subjectpreoperative evaluationen_US
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_US
dc.subjectsurgeryen_US
dc.subjectAnaerobic Thresholden_US
dc.subjectClinical Competenceen_US
dc.subjectCross-Sectional Studiesen_US
dc.subjectExercise Testen_US
dc.subjectHeart Rateen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectOxygen Consumptionen_US
dc.subjectPreoperative Careen_US
dc.subjectProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_US
dc.titleInter-observer reliability of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation: a cross-sectional study.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.071en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29452804en_US
pubs.issue3en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume120en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-11-15en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record