Key result
The Complior first generation and Complior SP devices demonstrated high intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility for pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the manual method (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does the Complior device (first and third generation) provide reproducible carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the manual method in adult participants?
Cross-Sectional (n=31)
Randomized sequence of measurement methods
Does the Complior device (first and third generation) provide reproducible carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the manual method in adult participants?
p-value: p=<0.0001
The Complior method (first and third generations) demonstrates high intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility for measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, supporting its use in clinical follow-up.
May support serial PWV monitoring in practice; leaves open outcome validation in prospective cohorts.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) with the Complior method, by comparing two generations of the device and the manual method. METHODS: We studied 31 participants (9 women) with a mean age of 47.67±12.55 years, who were submitted to sequential measures of carotid-femoral PWV by two experienced operators. The evaluations were made by randomly switching between the manual method, the Complior first generation, and the Complior SP (third generation). RESULTS: The analysis of concordance of measurements of PWV showed strong intraobserver and interobserver correlations. The intraobserver correlation coefficients were 0.984, 0.977, and 0.966, respectively, for manual evaluation, the Complior first generation, and the Complior SP (P<0.0001). In the case of interobserver reproducibility, we found correlations of 0.940, 0.979, and 0.974, respectively, for manual evaluation, the Complior first generation, and Complior SP (P<0.0001). Good indicators of reproducibility were also a withdrawal of the Bland-Altman analysis, with most values within 2 standard deviations. The mean difference±SD for intraobserver and interobserver agreement was -0.006±0.05 and -0.06±0.09 for manual determination; -0.02±0.06 and -0.04±0.06 for Complior first generation; and 0.16±0.09 and 0.15±0.07 for the Complior SP. CONCLUSION: The data showed a high reproducibility of the Complior method, documented by excellent correlations and low mean differences in measurements within and between observers. These data showed unequivocally that this method met the quality requirements for its inclusion in integrated clinical follow-up programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2010) reported a cross-sectional. Complior first generation and Complior SP devices vs. Manual method was evaluated on Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (p=<0.0001). The Complior first generation and Complior SP devices demonstrated high intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility for pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the manual method (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: