| The QA pressure measurement system: an accuracy and reliability study. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 10065751 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of the Queen Alexandra Pressure Measurement System (QA PMS). Furthermore, we examined whether there were significant differences in measured pressures of the buttock area during sitting between normal subjects and spinal cord injured (SCI) patients. DESIGN: Accuracy (calibration) and reliability (test-retest) study. SETTING: The spinal cord unit of Tertiary Care Centre 'De Hoogstraat' in Utrecht, The Netherlands. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 16 SCI patients and 15 normal subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy was determined by using the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM, in mmHg). The Technical Error of Measurement (TEM, in mmHg) was calculated as measure for differences between two paired measurements. The reliability was determined by using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Significant differences in measured pressures between both groups (P<0.05) were determined by using an unpaired (two sample) t-test. RESULTS: Accuracy (calibration): mean SEM=0.30 (+/-0.1) mmHg, indicating a high level of accuracy. Differences between two paired measurements: mean TEM calibration= 1.87 (+/-0.76) mmHg; mean TEM normal subjects=4.76 (+/-1.78) mmHg; mean TEM SCI patients=6.34 (+/-2.19) mmHg. Reliability: mean ICC(3,1) calibration=0.85 (95% CI=0.74 0.95); mean ICC(2.1) normal subjects=0.92 (95% CI=0.90 0.94); mean ICC(2.1) SCI patients=0.90 (95% CI=0.88 0.92). The normal subjects had significantly higher mean pressures (P=0.028) than the SCI patients (mean pressures 31.0 vs 28.5 mmHg), whilst the SCI patients had significantly higher peak-pressures (P=0.0000) than the normal subjects (mean peak-pressures: 134.1 vs 75.7 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: The QA Pressure Measurement System has sufficient accuracy and good reliability as a measurement procedure. There are significant differences between the measured pressures of both groups: the significantly higher peak pressures of the SCI patients seem to be the most important. |
| | |
Authors:
|
D van Dijk; G Aufdemkampe; S van Langeveld |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Spinal cord Volume: 37 ISSN: 1362-4393 ISO Abbreviation: Spinal Cord Publication Date: 1999 Feb |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 1999-04-30 Completed Date: 1999-04-30 Revised Date: 2011-06-06 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9609749 Medline TA: Spinal Cord Country: ENGLAND |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 123-8 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Center Hospital Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Buttocks
/
physiopathology* Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted* / instrumentation Evaluation Studies as Topic Humans Manometry / instrumentation, methods* Pressure Pressure Ulcer / prevention & control* Reference Values Reproducibility of Results Spinal Cord Injuries / physiopathology* |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Delayed diaphragm recovery in 12 patients after high cervical spinal cord injury. A retrospective re...
Next Document: Reproducibility of the Adapted Leger and Boucher Test for wheelchair-dependent athletes.