OBJECTIVES: to estimate the intra-observer variability of the measurement of the ankle-brachial systolic pressure index (ABPI) and to compare the reproducibility of the measurements by experienced vascular laboratory assistants and by less-experienced general practice personnel. DESIGN: repeated measurement of ABPI by general practitioners (GPs), GP-assistants and vascular laboratory assistants using a pocket Doppler device and a random-zero sphygmomanometer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ABPI was measured in six patients with various degrees of PAOD by two experienced observers (vascular laboratory assistants) and by 24 less-experienced observers (18 practice assistants, six GPs). RESULTS: the total number of measurements was 354. The overall intra-observer variability estimate was 11.8% ABPI. The intra-observer variability was 7.3% in the experienced observers and 12.0% in the less-experienced observers. The difference of variability between experienced and less-experienced observers was significant. CONCLUSIONS: the ABPI is suitable in follow-up studies where repeated measurements are needed. Differences between measurements can be minimised by performing repeated measurements or by using more experienced observers. Copyright 1999 W.B. Saunders Company Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: to estimate the intra-observer variability of the measurement of the ankle-brachial systolic pressure index (ABPI) and to compare the reproducibility of the measurements by experienced vascular laboratory assistants and by less-experienced general practice personnel. DESIGN: repeated measurement of ABPI by general practitioners (GPs), GP-assistants and vascular laboratory assistants using a pocket Doppler device and a random-zero sphygmomanometer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ABPI was measured in six patients with various degrees of PAOD by two experienced observers (vascular laboratory assistants) and by 24 less-experienced observers (18 practice assistants, six GPs). RESULTS: the total number of measurements was 354. The overall intra-observer variability estimate was 11.8% ABPI. The intra-observer variability was 7.3% in the experienced observers and 12.0% in the less-experienced observers. The difference of variability between experienced and less-experienced observers was significant. CONCLUSIONS: the ABPI is suitable in follow-up studies where repeated measurements are needed. Differences between measurements can be minimised by performing repeated measurements or by using more experienced observers. Copyright 1999 W.B. Saunders Company Ltd.
Authors: María Teresa Alzamora; Rosa Forés; José Miguel Baena-Díez; Guillem Pera; Pere Toran; Marta Sorribes; Marisa Vicheto; María Dolores Reina; Amparo Sancho; Carlos Albaladejo; Judith Llussà Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Saskia P A Nicolaï; Lotte M Kruidenier; Ellen V Rouwet; Marie-Louise E L Bartelink; Martin H Prins; Joep A W Teijink Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Stefan F Lange; Hans-Joachim Trampisch; David Pittrow; Harald Darius; Matthias Mahn; Jens R Allenberg; Gerhart Tepohl; Roman L Haberl; Curt Diehm Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Saskia P A Nicolaï; Lotte M Kruidenier; Ellen V Rouwet; Liliane Wetzels-Gulpers; Constantijn A M Rozeman; Martin H Prins; Joep A W Teijink Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: María Teresa Alzamora; José Miguel Baena-Díez; Marta Sorribes; Rosa Forés; Pere Toran; Marisa Vicheto; Guillem Pera; María Dolores Reina; Carlos Albaladejo; Judith Llussà; Magda Bundó; Amparo Sancho; Antonio Heras; Joan Rubiés; Juan Francisco Arenillas Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Maria Young; Ivan Birch; Chloe Alexa Potter; Robert Saunders; Simon Otter; Shahin Hussain; Jane Pellett; Nadine Reynolds; Sarah Jenkin; Wendy Wright Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2013-07-13 Impact factor: 2.303