Key result
A streamlined method of scoring the ensemble-averaged impedance cardiogram showed excellent interrater reliability (ICC >.92) and concurrent validity (ICC >.97) compared to the conventional method.
Why the study?
Does a streamlined scoring method for ensemble-averaged impedance cardiograms provide comparable reliability and validity to a conventional method in undergraduate students?
Population
40 undergraduate men and women
Comparison
Streamlined method of scoring ensemble-averaged… vs Conventional method
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Streamlined scoring may enhance feasibility of impedance cardiography; leaves open validation in clinical cardiovascular populations.
Observational (n=40)
Does a streamlined scoring method for ensemble-averaged impedance cardiograms provide comparable reliability and validity to a conventional method in undergraduate students?
Effect estimate: ICC >.92 for interrater reliability, ICC >.97 for concurrent validity
A streamlined method for scoring ensemble-averaged impedance cardiograms without beat-to-beat editing is faster and highly reliable compared to conventional methods.
Kelsey et al. (1998) reported an observational. Streamlined scoring method (without beat-to-beat editing) vs. Conventional scoring method (with beat-to-beat editing) was evaluated on Interrater reliability and concurrent validity (ICC >.92 for interrater reliability, ICC >.97 for concurrent validity). A streamlined method of scoring the ensemble-averaged impedance cardiogram showed excellent interrater reliability (ICC >.92) and concurrent validity (ICC >.97) compared to the conventional method.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: