EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement of O2Pulse inflection during cardiopulmonary exercise testing: A comparison of subjective and novel objective methodology

Thomas Nickolay, Gordon McGregor, Richard Powell, Brian Begg, Stefan Birkett, Simon Nichols, Stuart Ennis, Prithwish Banerjee, Rob Shave, James Metcalfe, Angela Hoye and Lee Ingle

PLOS ONE, 2024, vol. 19, issue 3, 1-11

Abstract: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the ‘gold standard’ method for evaluating functional capacity, with oxygen pulse (O2Pulse) inflections serving as a potential indicator of myocardial ischaemia. However, the reliability and agreement of identifying these inflections have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to assess the inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement of a subjective quantification method for identifying O2Pulse inflections during CPET, and to propose a more robust and objective novel algorithm as an alternative methodology. A retrospective analysis was conducted using baseline data from the HIIT or MISS UK trial. The O2Pulse curves were visually inspected by two independent examiners, and compared against an objective algorithm. Fleiss’ Kappa was used to determine the reliability of agreement between the three groups of observations. The results showed almost perfect agreement between the algorithm and both examiners, with a Fleiss’ Kappa statistic of 0.89. The algorithm also demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC) when compared to both examiners (0.92–0.98). However, a significant level (P ≤0.05) of systematic bias was observed in Bland-Altman analysis for comparisons involving the novice examiner. In conclusion, this study provides evidence for the reliability of both subjective and novel objective methods for identifying inflections in O2Pulse during CPET. These findings suggest that further research into the clinical significance of O2Pulse inflections is warranted, and that the adoption of a novel objective means of quantification may be preferable to ensure equality of outcome for patients.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299486 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 99486&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0299486

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299486

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

 
Page updated 2025-05-05
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299486