ABSTRACT
Background@#Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are high-risk extensive abdominal surgery. During high-risk surgery, less invasive methods for cardiac index (CI) measurement have been widely used in operating theater. We investigated the accuracy of CI derived from different methods (FroTrac, ProAQT, ClearSight, and arterial pressure waveform analysis [APWA], from PICCO) and compared them to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) during CRS and HIPEC in the operative room and intensive care unit (ICU). @*Methods@#Twenty-five patients scheduled for CRS-HIPEC were enrolled. During nine predefined time-points, simultaneous hemodynamic measurements were performed in the operating room and ICU. Absolute and relative changes of CI were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot, four-quadrant plot, and interchangeability. @*Results@#The mean bias was −0.1 L/min/m2 for ClearSight, ProAQT, and APWA and was −0.2 L/min/m2 for FloTrac compared with TPTD. All devices had large limits of agreement (LoA). The percentage of errors and interchangeabilities for ClearSight, FloTrac, ProAQT, and APWA were 50%, 50%, 54%, 36% and 36%, 47%, 40%, 72%, respectively. Trending capabilities expressed as concordance using clinically significant CI changes were −7º ± 39º, −19º ± 38º, −13º ± 41º, and −15º ± 39º. Interchangeability in trending showed low percentages of interchangeable and gray zone data pairs for all devices. @*Conclusions@#During CRS-HIPEC, ClearSight, FloTrac and ProAQT systems were not able to reliably measure CI compared to TPTD. Reproducibility of changes over time using concordance, angular bias, radial LoA, and interchangeability in trending of all devices was unsatisfactory.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are high-risk extensive abdominal surgery. During high-risk surgery, less invasive methods for cardiac index (CI) measurement have been widely used in operating theater. We investigated the accuracy of CI derived from different methods (FroTrac, ProAQT, ClearSight, and arterial pressure waveform analysis [APWA], from PICCO) and compared them to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) during CRS and HIPEC in the operative room and intensive care unit (ICU). @*Methods@#Twenty-five patients scheduled for CRS-HIPEC were enrolled. During nine predefined time-points, simultaneous hemodynamic measurements were performed in the operating room and ICU. Absolute and relative changes of CI were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot, four-quadrant plot, and interchangeability. @*Results@#The mean bias was −0.1 L/min/m2 for ClearSight, ProAQT, and APWA and was −0.2 L/min/m2 for FloTrac compared with TPTD. All devices had large limits of agreement (LoA). The percentage of errors and interchangeabilities for ClearSight, FloTrac, ProAQT, and APWA were 50%, 50%, 54%, 36% and 36%, 47%, 40%, 72%, respectively. Trending capabilities expressed as concordance using clinically significant CI changes were −7º ± 39º, −19º ± 38º, −13º ± 41º, and −15º ± 39º. Interchangeability in trending showed low percentages of interchangeable and gray zone data pairs for all devices. @*Conclusions@#During CRS-HIPEC, ClearSight, FloTrac and ProAQT systems were not able to reliably measure CI compared to TPTD. Reproducibility of changes over time using concordance, angular bias, radial LoA, and interchangeability in trending of all devices was unsatisfactory.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Assessment in different languages should measure the same construct. However, item characteristics, such as item flaws and content, may favor one test-taker group over another. This is known as item bias. Although some studies have focused on item bias, little is known about item bias and its association with items characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the association between item characteristics and bias. METHODS: The University of Groningen offers both an international and a national bachelor’s program in medicine. Students in both programs take the same progress test, but the international progress test is literally translated into English from the Dutch version. Differential item functioning was calculated to analyze item bias in four subsequent progress tests. Items were also classified by their categories, number of alternatives, item flaw, item length, and whether it was a case-based question. RESULTS: The proportion of items with bias ranged from 34% to 36% for the various tests. The number of items and the size of their bias was very similar in both programmes. We have identified that the more complex items with more alternatives favored the national students, whereas shorter items and fewer alternatives favored the international students. CONCLUSION: Although nearly 35% of all items contain bias, the distribution and the size of the bias were similar for both groups. The findings of this paper may be used to improve the writing process of the items, by avoiding some characteristics that may benefit one group whilst being a disadvantage for others.