Metrology part 2: Procedures for the validation of major measurement quality criteria and measuring instrument properties
Open Access
- 18 March 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
- Vol. 35 (1), 27-37
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00495-x
Abstract
A measurement is always afflicted with some degree of uncertainty. A correct understanding of the different types of uncertainty, their naming, and their definition is of crucial importance for an appropriate use of the measuring instruments. However, in perioperative and intensive care medicine, the metrological requirements for measuring instruments are poorly defined and often used spuriously. The correct use of metrological terms is also of crucial importance in validation studies. The European Union published a new directive on medical devices, mentioning that in the case of devices with a measuring function, the notified body is involved in all aspects relating to the conformity of the device with the metrological requirements. It is therefore the task of scientific societies to establish the standards in their area of expertise. After adopting the same understandings and definitions (part 1), the different procedures for the validation of major quality criteria of measuring devices must be consensually established. In this metrologic review (part 2), we review the terms and definitions of validation, some basic processes leading to the display of an indication from a physiologic signal, and procedures for the validation of measuring instrument properties, with specific focus on perioperative and intensive care medicine including appropriate examples.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cardiac output monitoring: how to choose the optimal method for the individual patientCurrent Opinion in Critical Care, 2018
- Error Grid Analysis for Arterial Pressure Method Comparison StudiesAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2018
- Methodology of method comparison studies evaluating the validity of cardiac output monitors: a stepwise approach and checklist † †This Article is accompanied by Editorial Aew110.British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2016
- How Should Blood Glucose Meter System Analytical Performance Be Assessed?Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2015
- Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of methodJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 2015
- Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validationIntensive Care Medicine, 2007
- Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.1986
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986