Document Detail

The QA pressure measurement system: an accuracy and reliability study.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  10065751     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
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.
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    
Center Hospital Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Buttocks / physiopathology*
Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted* / instrumentation
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Manometry / instrumentation,  methods*
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.