Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 1/2021

Open Access 01-02-2021 | Care | Review Paper

Metrology part 2: Procedures for the validation of major measurement quality criteria and measuring instrument properties

Authors: Pierre Squara, Thomas W. L. Scheeren, Hollmann D. Aya, Jan Bakker, Maurizio Cecconi, Sharon Einav, Manu L. N. G. Malbrain, Xavier Monnet, Daniel A. Reuter, Iwan C. C. van der Horst, Bernd Saugel

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Dib JC, Dubois C. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191–4.CrossRef Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Dib JC, Dubois C. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191–4.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hapfelmeier A, Cecconi M, Saugel B. Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(2):149–55.CrossRef Hapfelmeier A, Cecconi M, Saugel B. Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(2):149–55.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Simmons DA. How should blood glucose meter system analytical performance be assessed? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):178–84.CrossRef Simmons DA. How should blood glucose meter system analytical performance be assessed? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):178–84.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Saugel B, Grothe O, Nicklas JY. Error grid analysis for arterial pressure method comparison studies. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(4):1177–85.CrossRef Saugel B, Grothe O, Nicklas JY. Error grid analysis for arterial pressure method comparison studies. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(4):1177–85.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Montenij LJ, Buhre WF, Jansen JR, Kruitwagen CL, de Waal EE. Methodology of method comparison studies evaluating the validity of cardiac output monitors: a stepwise approach and checklist. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(6):750–8.CrossRef Montenij LJ, Buhre WF, Jansen JR, Kruitwagen CL, de Waal EE. Methodology of method comparison studies evaluating the validity of cardiac output monitors: a stepwise approach and checklist. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(6):750–8.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Saugel B, Vincent JL. Cardiac output monitoring: how to choose the optimal method for the individual patient. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):165–72.CrossRef Saugel B, Vincent JL. Cardiac output monitoring: how to choose the optimal method for the individual patient. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):165–72.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Regulation (EU). 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the council on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (2017) Official Journal of the European Union. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2745/oj. Regulation (EU). 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the council on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (2017) Official Journal of the European Union. http://​data.​europa.​eu/​eli/​reg/​2017/​2745/​oj.
Metadata
Title
Metrology part 2: Procedures for the validation of major measurement quality criteria and measuring instrument properties
Authors
Pierre Squara
Thomas W. L. Scheeren
Hollmann D. Aya
Jan Bakker
Maurizio Cecconi
Sharon Einav
Manu L. N. G. Malbrain
Xavier Monnet
Daniel A. Reuter
Iwan C. C. van der Horst
Bernd Saugel
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Keyword
Care
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00495-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 1/2021 Go to the issue