Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.

<h4>Introduction</h4>The Bland-Altman limits of agreement method is widely used to assess how well the measurements produced by two raters, devices or systems agree with each other. However, mixed effects versions of the method which take into account multiple sources of variability are...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Richard A Parker, Christopher J Weir, Noah Rubio, Roberto Rabinovich, Hilary Pinnock, Janet Hanley, Lucy McCloughan, Ellen M Drost, Leandro C Mantoani, William MacNee, Brian McKinstry
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168321&type=printable
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850133487849308160
author Richard A Parker
Christopher J Weir
Noah Rubio
Roberto Rabinovich
Hilary Pinnock
Janet Hanley
Lucy McCloughan
Ellen M Drost
Leandro C Mantoani
William MacNee
Brian McKinstry
author_facet Richard A Parker
Christopher J Weir
Noah Rubio
Roberto Rabinovich
Hilary Pinnock
Janet Hanley
Lucy McCloughan
Ellen M Drost
Leandro C Mantoani
William MacNee
Brian McKinstry
author_sort Richard A Parker
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Introduction</h4>The Bland-Altman limits of agreement method is widely used to assess how well the measurements produced by two raters, devices or systems agree with each other. However, mixed effects versions of the method which take into account multiple sources of variability are less well described in the literature. We address the practical challenges of applying mixed effects limits of agreement to the comparison of several devices to measure respiratory rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).<h4>Methods</h4>Respiratory rate was measured in 21 people with a range of severity of COPD. Participants were asked to perform eleven different activities representative of daily life during a laboratory-based standardised protocol of 57 minutes. A mixed effects limits of agreement method was used to assess the agreement of five commercially available monitors (Camera, Photoplethysmography (PPG), Impedance, Accelerometer, and Chest-band) with the current gold standard device for measuring respiratory rate.<h4>Results</h4>Results produced using mixed effects limits of agreement were compared to results from a fixed effects method based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) and were found to be similar. The Accelerometer and Chest-band devices produced the narrowest limits of agreement (-8.63 to 4.27 and -9.99 to 6.80 respectively) with mean bias -2.18 and -1.60 breaths per minute. These devices also had the lowest within-participant and overall standard deviations (3.23 and 3.29 for Accelerometer and 4.17 and 4.28 for Chest-band respectively).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The mixed effects limits of agreement analysis enabled us to answer the question of which devices showed the strongest agreement with the gold standard device with respect to measuring respiratory rates. In particular, the estimated within-participant and overall standard deviations of the differences, which are easily obtainable from the mixed effects model results, gave a clear indication that the Accelerometer and Chest-band devices performed best.
format Article
id doaj-art-6d79ca2336264b4aa1fba849b70d3abd
institution OA Journals
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2016-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-6d79ca2336264b4aa1fba849b70d3abd2025-08-20T02:31:57ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-011112e016832110.1371/journal.pone.0168321Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.Richard A ParkerChristopher J WeirNoah RubioRoberto RabinovichHilary PinnockJanet HanleyLucy McCloughanEllen M DrostLeandro C MantoaniWilliam MacNeeBrian McKinstry<h4>Introduction</h4>The Bland-Altman limits of agreement method is widely used to assess how well the measurements produced by two raters, devices or systems agree with each other. However, mixed effects versions of the method which take into account multiple sources of variability are less well described in the literature. We address the practical challenges of applying mixed effects limits of agreement to the comparison of several devices to measure respiratory rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).<h4>Methods</h4>Respiratory rate was measured in 21 people with a range of severity of COPD. Participants were asked to perform eleven different activities representative of daily life during a laboratory-based standardised protocol of 57 minutes. A mixed effects limits of agreement method was used to assess the agreement of five commercially available monitors (Camera, Photoplethysmography (PPG), Impedance, Accelerometer, and Chest-band) with the current gold standard device for measuring respiratory rate.<h4>Results</h4>Results produced using mixed effects limits of agreement were compared to results from a fixed effects method based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) and were found to be similar. The Accelerometer and Chest-band devices produced the narrowest limits of agreement (-8.63 to 4.27 and -9.99 to 6.80 respectively) with mean bias -2.18 and -1.60 breaths per minute. These devices also had the lowest within-participant and overall standard deviations (3.23 and 3.29 for Accelerometer and 4.17 and 4.28 for Chest-band respectively).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The mixed effects limits of agreement analysis enabled us to answer the question of which devices showed the strongest agreement with the gold standard device with respect to measuring respiratory rates. In particular, the estimated within-participant and overall standard deviations of the differences, which are easily obtainable from the mixed effects model results, gave a clear indication that the Accelerometer and Chest-band devices performed best.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168321&type=printable
spellingShingle Richard A Parker
Christopher J Weir
Noah Rubio
Roberto Rabinovich
Hilary Pinnock
Janet Hanley
Lucy McCloughan
Ellen M Drost
Leandro C Mantoani
William MacNee
Brian McKinstry
Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
PLoS ONE
title Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
title_full Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
title_fullStr Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
title_full_unstemmed Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
title_short Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.
title_sort application of mixed effects limits of agreement in the presence of multiple sources of variability exemplar from the comparison of several devices to measure respiratory rate in copd patients
url https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168321&type=printable
work_keys_str_mv AT richardaparker applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT christopherjweir applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT noahrubio applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT robertorabinovich applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT hilarypinnock applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT janethanley applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT lucymccloughan applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT ellenmdrost applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT leandrocmantoani applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT williammacnee applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients
AT brianmckinstry applicationofmixedeffectslimitsofagreementinthepresenceofmultiplesourcesofvariabilityexemplarfromthecomparisonofseveraldevicestomeasurerespiratoryrateincopdpatients