Assessing repeatability and reproducibility of Anterior Active Rhinomanometry (AAR) in children.

BACKGROUND

Repeatability and reproducibility are essential for clinicians for several purposes. Although discouraged, use of the Coefficient of Variation (CV) for assessing repeatability and reproducibility, rather than the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), is still widespread. The aim of the present study was to highlight how using inappropriate indices may lead to misleading results, and this is done by simulation study and using real data on Anterior Active Rhinomanometry (AAR) in both healthy children and ones with rhinitis.

METHODS

A simulation study was carried out to highlight how using inappropriate indices could be misleading. Then a comparison was made between CV and ICC to assess repeatability and reproducibility of AAR, for which previous studies have given underestimated results. AAR is recommended as the gold standard tool for measuring nasal resistance in clinical practice.

RESULTS

A simulation study showed that the ICCs estimated from data generated assuming a true CV yielded results in agreement with estimated CVs; by contrast, if data were generated assuming a true ICC, CVs yielded conflicting results. For AAR, ICCs showed good repeatability, whereas CVs showed unacceptable repeatability. AUC and 95% CI for AAR showed good performance in predicting current symptoms of rhinitis in the overall study population.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study focused on the importance of the choice of appropriate indices of repeatability and reproducibility, demonstrating the repeatability of AAR in both healthy children and ones with rhinitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03286049; Registration Date: September 15, 2017; Actual Study Start Date: January 10, 2018).