Suchergebnisse

A measurement is always afflicted with some degree of uncertainty. A correct understanding of the different types of uncertainty, their naming, and their definition is of crucial importance for an appropriate use of the measuring instruments. However, in perioperative and intensive care medicine, the metrological requirements for measuring instruments are poorly defined and often used spuriously. The correct use of metrological terms is also of crucial importance in validation studies. The European Union published a new directive on medical devices, mentioning that in the case of devices with a measuring function, the notified body is involved in all aspects relating to the conformity of the device with the metrological requirements. It is therefore the task of scientific societies to establish the standards in their area of expertise. After adopting the same understandings and definitions (part 1), the different procedures for the validation of major quality criteria of measuring devices must be consensually established. In this metrologic review (part 2), we review the terms and definitions of validation, some basic processes leading to the display of an indication from a physiologic signal, and procedures for the validation of measuring instrument properties, with specific focus on perioperative and intensive care medicine including appropriate examples.

Any measurement is always afflicted with some degree of uncertainty. A correct understanding of the different types of uncertainty, their naming, and their definition is of crucial importance for an appropriate use of measuring instruments. However, in perioperative and intensive care medicine, the metrological requirements for measuring instruments are poorly defined and often used spuriously. The correct use of metrological terms is also of crucial importance in validation studies. The European Union published a new directive on medical devices, mentioning that in the case of devices with a measuring function, the notified body is involved in all aspects relating to the conformity of the device with the metrological requirements. It is therefore the task of the scientific societies to establish the standards in their area of expertise. Adopting the same understandings and definitions among clinicians and scientists is obviously the first step. In this metrologic review (part 1), we list and explain the most important terms defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures regarding quantities and units, properties of measurements, devices for measurement, properties of measuring devices, and measurement standards, with specific examples from perioperative and intensive care medicine.

Any measurement is always afflicted with some degree of uncertainty. A correct understanding of the different types of uncertainty, their naming, and their definition is of crucial importance for an appropriate use of measuring instruments. However, in perioperative and intensive care medicine, the metrological requirements for measuring instruments are poorly defined and often used spuriously. The correct use of metrological terms is also of crucial importance in validation studies. The European Union published a new directive on medical devices, mentioning that in the case of devices with a measuring function, the notified body is involved in all aspects relating to the conformity of the device with the metrological requirements. It is therefore the task of the scientific societies to establish the standards in their area of expertise. Adopting the same understandings and definitions among clinicians and scientists is obviously the first step. In this metrologic review (part 1), we list and explain the most important terms defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures regarding quantities and units, properties of measurements, devices for measurement, properties of measuring devices, and measurement standards, with specific examples from perioperative and intensive care medicine.

A measurement is always afflicted with some degree of uncertainty. A correct understanding of the different types of uncertainty, their naming, and their definition is of crucial importance for an appropriate use of the measuring instruments. However, in perioperative and intensive care medicine, the metrological requirements for measuring instruments are poorly defined and often used spuriously. The correct use of metrological terms is also of crucial importance in validation studies. The European Union published a new directive on medical devices, mentioning that in the case of devices with a measuring function, the notified body is involved in all aspects relating to the conformity of the device with the metrological requirements. It is therefore the task of scientific societies to establish the standards in their area of expertise. After adopting the same understandings and definitions (part 1), the different procedures for the validation of major quality criteria of measuring devices must be consensually established. In this metrologic review (part 2), we review the terms and definitions of validation, some basic processes leading to the display of an indication from a physiologic signal, and procedures for the validation of measuring instrument properties, with specific focus on perioperative and intensive care medicine including appropriate examples.

Readers' note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity. Funding: LW, BVC, LH, and MDV acknowledge specific funding for this work from Internal Funds KU Leuven, KOOR, and the COVID-19 Fund. LW is a postdoctoral fellow of Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) and receives support from ZonMw (grant 10430012010001). BVC received support from FWO (grant G0B4716N) and Internal Funds KU Leuven (grant C24/15/037). TPAD acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant 91617050). VMTdJ was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ReCoDID grant agreement 825746. KGMM and JAAD acknowledge financial support from Cochrane Collaboration (SMF 2018). KIES is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. GSC was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and Cancer Research UK (programme grant C49297/A27294). JM was supported by the Cancer Research UK (programme grant C49297/A27294). PD was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. MOH is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the United States National Institutes of Health (grant R00 HL141678). ICCvDH and BCTvB received funding from Euregio Meuse-Rhine (grant Covid Data Platform (coDaP) interref EMR187). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or reporting. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF