ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a non-invasive tool used to measure blood flow in peripheral tissues. More information on inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability of NIRS-based reperfusion assessments is needed. PURPOSE: To assess inter-rater agreement for NIRS based data analysis, and evaluate the measurement's reliability across days. METHODS: On three separate days (average days between visits 1 and 3: 19.4 ± 6.9 days), participants' (N = 15 males, 22 ± 2 yr.) post-occlusion reactive hyperemia (PORH) was measured in the left gastrocnemius muscle using Continuous-Wave NIRS (CW-NIRS). A blood pressure cuff was placed proximal to the knee and inflated to occlude lower leg blood flow for 5 min. The following CW-NIRS parameters were selected: (1) percent saturation in HbO2 (StO2%) at baseline; (2) the O2Hb range used to normalize the NIRS signal; (3) the time for the O2Hb signal to reach 50 % peak post-occlusion hyperemia (T1/2), and (4) the post peak hyperemic O2Hb recovery slope (O2REC-SLP). Absolute agreement between the two analysts was calculated using two-way random effects Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC2,1). Consistency between analysts and across days was calculated using two-way mixed models (ICC3,1). Mean and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of ICCs are reported. Coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error of the measurement (SEM) are reported. RESULTS: The ICC2,1 data indicated "adequate" to "excellent" absolute agreement between the two NIRS analysts. ICC2,3 data indicated "adequate" to "good" reliability across visits. The CV and SEM for rater 1 and rater 2 across visit were StO2 (CV: 3.79 % ± 2.71 % and 4.50 % ± 2.37 %; SEM: 3.42 and 3.82), O2Hb range (CV: 10.50 ± 5.93 and 12.79 ± 12.41; SEM: 3.26 and 4.71), T1/2 (CV: 11.15 % ± 5.52 % and 10.96 % ± 4.50; SEM: 1.22 and 1.11), and O2REC-SLP (CV: 19.49 % ± 9.99 % and 18.45 % ± 9.48 %; SEM: 0.04 and 0.04). CONCLUSION: It is concluded that NIRS parameters assessed show adequate reliability between analysts and across three visits. It is recommended, when feasible and because of the absence of 100 % reliability, that investigators employ more than one rater for scoring at least a portion of the data across each trial in a study's control condition in order to have the ability to estimate the magnitude of error attributable to imperfect reliability.
