Labs K H, Tschoepl M, Gamba G, Aschwanden M, Jaeger K A
Department of Angiology, University of Basel Medical School, Switzerland.
Vasc Med. 2000;5(2):69-74. doi: 10.1177/1358836X0000500202.
The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of repeated spring tape measurements with optoelectronic volumeter measurements for the assessment of lower leg circumferences. The limb circumferences at mid-calf and ankle level of both legs were measured three times using a spring tape measure as well as an optoelectronic volumeter. In all, 30 healthy volunteers participated in the study. Test reliability and repeatability were described through the process-related and between-subject variances and variance-derived parameters such as the reliability coefficient (intraclass correlation coefficient, RC), the relative precision (RP), and the coefficient of repeatability (CR). A higher value for the RC and a lower value for the RP indicate that the test variability is predominantly due to between-subject variance and not to test process-related variance. RCs for both methods, independent of whether measurements were taken at calf or at ankle level, always exceeded 0.95. RPs were in the same order of magnitude for both methods but lower for measurements at calf than at ankle level (range: RPcalf 6.36-8.74%; range: RPankle 12.49-18.56%). CRs for both methods were low and of comparable magnitude (CR range: 4.8-7.7), although slightly smaller for the spring tape. When measurement results from the spring tape and the volumeter were compared, results achieved with the volumeter were significantly longer than those from the spring tape (p<0.05). Results from both methods were linearly in good agreement and there was no proportional bias; differences shown were due to a significant constant bias regarding the volumeter. Circumference measurements taken by spring tape and by optoelectronic volumetry are both characterized by a comparably high reliability. However, these methods cannot be used in an interchangeable way because a constant bias exists for volumetry, resulting in significantly larger circumferences compared with those measured using the spring tape.
本研究的目的是比较重复使用弹簧卷尺测量与光电体积计测量对小腿周长评估的可靠性。使用弹簧卷尺和光电体积计对双腿小腿中部和脚踝水平的肢体周长进行了三次测量。共有30名健康志愿者参与了该研究。通过过程相关方差和受试者间方差以及方差衍生参数(如可靠性系数(组内相关系数,RC)、相对精度(RP)和重复性系数(CR))来描述测试的可靠性和可重复性。RC值越高且RP值越低表明测试变异性主要归因于受试者间方差而非测试过程相关方差。两种方法的RC值,无论测量是在小腿还是脚踝水平进行,始终超过0.95。两种方法的RP值处于相同数量级,但小腿测量的RP值低于脚踝水平测量的RP值(范围:小腿RP 6.36 - 8.74%;范围:脚踝RP 12.49 - 18.56%)。两种方法的CR值都较低且幅度相当(CR范围:4.8 - 7.7),尽管弹簧卷尺的CR值略小。当比较弹簧卷尺和体积计的测量结果时,体积计获得的结果明显长于弹簧卷尺的结果(p<0.05)。两种方法的结果线性良好一致且无比例偏差;所显示的差异是由于体积计存在显著的恒定偏差。弹簧卷尺和光电体积测量法进行的周长测量都具有相当高的可靠性。然而,这些方法不能互换使用,因为体积测量存在恒定偏差,导致与使用弹簧卷尺测量的周长相比明显更大。