Research Papers: Sensing

Reproducibility, interchangeability of measures, time to measure stabilization, and reference values of two tissue oximeters in healthy volunteers

[+] Author Affiliations
Alexis Cournoyer, Raoul Daoust, Massimiliano Iseppon, Jean-Marc Chauny, Eric Notebaert

Université de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, 5400 Gouin Ouest, Montréal H4J 1C5, Canada

André Denault

Université de Montréal, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Division, 5000 Bélanger, Montréal H1T 1C8, Canada

Sylvie Cossette

Université de Montréal, Faculty of Nursing, 2375 Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal H3T 1A8, Canada

Annik Fortier

Montréal Health Innovations Coordinating Center, 4100 Molson #400, Montréal H1Y 3N1, Canada

J. Biomed. Opt. 21(9), 097003 (Sep 16, 2016). doi:10.1117/1.JBO.21.9.097003
History: Received June 8, 2016; Accepted August 30, 2016
Text Size: A A A

Abstract.  This study aimed to compare two tissue oximeters, the INVOS 5100c and the Equanox 7600, in terms of their reproducibility and the interchangeability of their measures. In a randomized order, three measurements were taken at six different sites on both sides of the body in 53 healthy volunteers. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and within-subject standard deviation (Sw) were calculated for each device. The ICCs were compared using Fisher r-to-z transformation and the Sw were compared using paired-sample t-tests. We found no difference between the reproducibility of the INVOS {ICC=0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.93]} and Equanox [ICC=0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.93)] in terms of ICCs (p=0.06). However, the Equanox [Sw=1.96 (95% CI 1.91 to 2.02)] showed a better Sw than the INVOS [Sw=2.11 (95% CI 2.05 to 2.17)] (p=0.019). Also, when compared directly to stable condition, the readings produced by the two oximeters varied considerably [ICC 0.43 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.49)]. When taken individually, both tissue oximeters displayed good reproducibility, the Equanox being slightly better than the INVOS in terms of absolute reproducibility. However, when compared, the oximeters showed poor interdevices agreement. Reference values were also described.

Figures in this Article
© 2016 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers

Topics

Oximeters ; Tissues

Citation

Alexis Cournoyer ; André Denault ; Sylvie Cossette ; Annik Fortier ; Raoul Daoust, et al.
"Reproducibility, interchangeability of measures, time to measure stabilization, and reference values of two tissue oximeters in healthy volunteers", J. Biomed. Opt. 21(9), 097003 (Sep 16, 2016). ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.21.9.097003


Access This Article
Sign in or Create a personal account to Buy this article ($20 for members, $25 for non-members).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Related Book Chapters

Topic Collections

PubMed Articles
Advertisement
  • Don't have an account?
  • Subscribe to the SPIE Digital Library
  • Create a FREE account to sign up for Digital Library content alerts and gain access to institutional subscriptions remotely.
Access This Article
Sign in or Create a personal account to Buy this article ($20 for members, $25 for non-members).
Access This Proceeding
Sign in or Create a personal account to Buy this article ($15 for members, $18 for non-members).
Access This Chapter

Access to SPIE eBooks is limited to subscribing institutions and is not available as part of a personal subscription. Print or electronic versions of individual SPIE books may be purchased via SPIE.org.