过期空气一氧化碳监测仪一致性分析。

IF 1.3 Q4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Journal of Smoking Cessation Pub Date : 2017-06-01 Epub Date: 2016-02-02 DOI:10.1017/jsc.2015.18
Joshua L Karelitz, Valerie C Michael, Kenneth A Perkins
{"title":"过期空气一氧化碳监测仪一致性分析。","authors":"Joshua L Karelitz,&nbsp;Valerie C Michael,&nbsp;Kenneth A Perkins","doi":"10.1017/jsc.2015.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The current study examined the level of agreement in expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) values, focusing especially on those confirming abstinence, between the two most commonly used CO monitors, the Vitalograph BreathCO and the Bedfont piCO+ Smokerlyzer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Expired-air samples were collected via both monitors from adult dependent smokers (44 M, 34 F) participating in studies using CO values to confirm abstinence durations of: 24 hours, 12 hours, or no abstinence. All met DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria and had a mean (SD) Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence score of 5.1 (1.8). Paired data collected across multiple visits were analyzed by regression-based Bland-Altman method of Limits of Agreement.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Analysis indicated a lack of agreement in CO measurement between monitors. Overall, the Bedfont monitor gave mean (±SEM) readings 3.83 (±.23) ppm higher than the Vitalograph monitor. Mean differences between monitors were larger for those ad lib smoking (5.65±.38 ppm) than those abstaining 12-24 hours (1.71±.13 ppm). Yet, there also was not consistent agreement in classification of 24 hour abstinence between monitors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Systematic differences in CO readings demonstrate these two very common monitors may not result in interchangeable values, and reported outcomes in smoking research based on CO values may depend on the monitor used.</p>","PeriodicalId":39350,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","volume":"12 2","pages":"105-112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/jsc.2015.18","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPIRED-AIR CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua L Karelitz,&nbsp;Valerie C Michael,&nbsp;Kenneth A Perkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jsc.2015.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The current study examined the level of agreement in expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) values, focusing especially on those confirming abstinence, between the two most commonly used CO monitors, the Vitalograph BreathCO and the Bedfont piCO+ Smokerlyzer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Expired-air samples were collected via both monitors from adult dependent smokers (44 M, 34 F) participating in studies using CO values to confirm abstinence durations of: 24 hours, 12 hours, or no abstinence. All met DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria and had a mean (SD) Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence score of 5.1 (1.8). Paired data collected across multiple visits were analyzed by regression-based Bland-Altman method of Limits of Agreement.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Analysis indicated a lack of agreement in CO measurement between monitors. Overall, the Bedfont monitor gave mean (±SEM) readings 3.83 (±.23) ppm higher than the Vitalograph monitor. Mean differences between monitors were larger for those ad lib smoking (5.65±.38 ppm) than those abstaining 12-24 hours (1.71±.13 ppm). Yet, there also was not consistent agreement in classification of 24 hour abstinence between monitors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Systematic differences in CO readings demonstrate these two very common monitors may not result in interchangeable values, and reported outcomes in smoking research based on CO values may depend on the monitor used.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Smoking Cessation\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"105-112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/jsc.2015.18\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Smoking Cessation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jsc.2015.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/2/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Smoking Cessation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jsc.2015.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

目前的研究检查了两种最常用的一氧化碳监测仪(Vitalograph BreathCO和Bedfont piCO+ Smokerlyzer)在过期空气中一氧化碳(CO)值的一致性水平,特别关注那些证实戒烟的一氧化碳监测仪。方法:通过两个监测仪从参与研究的成年依赖吸烟者(44 M, 34 F)收集过期空气样本,使用CO值确认戒烟持续时间:24小时,12小时或不戒烟。均符合DSM-IV尼古丁依赖标准,平均(SD) Fagerström香烟依赖测试得分为5.1分(1.8分)。采用基于回归的Bland-Altman共识限法对多次访问收集的配对数据进行分析。结果:分析表明,在监测之间缺乏一致的一氧化碳测量。总的来说,Bedfont监测器给出的平均(±SEM)读数比Vitalograph监测器高3.83(±0.23)ppm。监测者之间的平均差异较大的是吸烟(5.65±。(1.71±。13 ppm)。然而,在24小时戒断的分类上,监测者之间也没有一致的共识。结论:一氧化碳读数的系统差异表明这两种非常常见的监测仪可能无法产生可互换的值,并且基于一氧化碳值的吸烟研究报告结果可能取决于所使用的监测仪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPIRED-AIR CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS.

ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPIRED-AIR CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS.

Introduction: The current study examined the level of agreement in expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) values, focusing especially on those confirming abstinence, between the two most commonly used CO monitors, the Vitalograph BreathCO and the Bedfont piCO+ Smokerlyzer.

Methods: Expired-air samples were collected via both monitors from adult dependent smokers (44 M, 34 F) participating in studies using CO values to confirm abstinence durations of: 24 hours, 12 hours, or no abstinence. All met DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria and had a mean (SD) Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence score of 5.1 (1.8). Paired data collected across multiple visits were analyzed by regression-based Bland-Altman method of Limits of Agreement.

Findings: Analysis indicated a lack of agreement in CO measurement between monitors. Overall, the Bedfont monitor gave mean (±SEM) readings 3.83 (±.23) ppm higher than the Vitalograph monitor. Mean differences between monitors were larger for those ad lib smoking (5.65±.38 ppm) than those abstaining 12-24 hours (1.71±.13 ppm). Yet, there also was not consistent agreement in classification of 24 hour abstinence between monitors.

Conclusions: Systematic differences in CO readings demonstrate these two very common monitors may not result in interchangeable values, and reported outcomes in smoking research based on CO values may depend on the monitor used.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Smoking Cessation
Journal of Smoking Cessation Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信