Why the study?
Guidelines suggest specific averaging or median protocols for cfPWV measurement, but many studies simply average duplicate measurements irrespective of differences, raising questions about the impact on reported values.
How do different calculation methods (median vs averages) impact the reported value of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity?
How do different calculation methods (median vs averages) impact the reported value of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity?
Different methods of calculating cfPWV from multiple measurements yield small overall mean differences but can result in clinically relevant absolute differences exceeding 0.5 m/s in a large proportion of individuals.
Inconsistent cfPWV averaging may bias cross-study comparisons; leaves open need for standardized protocols in practice and trials.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate comparisons of carotid--femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) within and across studies require standardized procedures. Guidelines suggest reporting the average of at least two cfPWV measurements; if the difference exceeds 0.5 m/s, a third measurement should be taken, and the median reported. Another method involves repeating measurements until two values are within 0.5 m/s. However, in many studies, duplicate measurements are averaged irrespective of the difference between readings. We evaluated the impact of these methods on the reported cfPWV value. METHODS: Measurements of cfPWV (SphygmoCor) from five studies included individuals spanning a wide age range, with or without comorbid conditions, and pregnant women. In participants with at least three high-quality measurements, differences between the median value (MED) and the average of the first two cfPWV measurements (AVG1) and the average of two cfPWV measurements within 0.5 m/s (AVG2) were evaluated using paired t-tests and Bland--Altman plots. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 50 ± 14 years and BMI was 28.0 ± 5.5 kg/m2 (N = 306, 79% women). The overall mean difference was -0.10 m/s (95% CI 0.17 to -0.04) between MED and AVG1, and 0.11 m/s (95% CI 0.05--0.17) between MED and AVG2. The absolute difference exceeded 0.5 m/s in 34% (MED-AVG1) and 22% (MED-AVG2) of participants, and 1 m/s in 8% of participants (both MED-AVG1 and MED-AVG2). Scatter around the bias line increased with higher mean cfPWV values. CONCLUSION: Although the overall mean difference in cfPWV between protocols was not clinically relevant, large variation led to absolute differences exceeding 0.5 m/s in a large proportion of participants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cooke et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: