Inter-instrument reliability for hand dynamometry and spirometry: raw data

Full description

This record describes the data for the dominant handgrip strength (DHGS) and lung function of apparently healthy adults (aged between 18 and 80 years) using different hand dynamometers and spirometers, respectively. This data was collected across three regional health facilities to assess the inter-instrument reliability between different brands of hand dynamometers and spirometers routinely used in clinical practice. At each facility, each participant completed dynamometry and spirometry assessments using a local and reference device (hand dynamometers and spirometers). Only the DHGS was assessed while the lung function assessment included the forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR).

Four hand dynamometers were involved in this study: Three Jamar hydraulic dynamometers; (Model 5030J1, Performance Health, China; Model J00105, Sammons Preston, Bolingbrook, IL and Model 5030JI, Patterson Medical, Warrenville, IL) and the CAMRY electronic dynamometer (Model EH101, Zhongshan Camry Electronic Co., Ltd, China). The Jamar hydraulic dynamometer (Performance Health) was utilised as the reference device at each facility, while the other three dynamometers were the local devices. DHGS was assessed with participants in a seated position with elbow placed in 90 degrees flexion in accordance with the American Society of Hand Therapist guidelines (ASHT). The Jamar dynamometers were set in the second handle position, as recommended by the ASHT while the Camry dynamometer was adjusted to the third position. Three measurement trials were undertaken for the dominant hand to achieve a rest phase of at least 15 seconds after every trial. Each trial did not last more than six seconds with the highest value recorded as the participant’s DHGS.

Four spirometers were involved in this study: Vitalograph ALPHA spirometer (Model 6000, Vitalograph Ltd, Ireland); EasyOne spirometer (Model 2001, ndd Medical Technologies, Switzerland); CONTEC spirometer (Model SP10, CONTEC Medical systems Ltd, China) and Microlab spirometer (CareFusion, Yorba Linda, CA, USA). The Vitalograph-ALPHA spirometer was utilised as the reference device at each facility, while the other three spirometers were the local spirometers. A disposable mouthpiece was used for each participant during this assessment and standardised guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) were followed. These guidelines required participants to sit upright, apply a nose clip, rapidly inhale fully through the mouth followed by maximal exhalation through the mouthpiece until complete lung discharge. Three lung function indices, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) were assessed. Assessments included three trials, with the highest value for FEV1, FVC and PEFR utilised in analyses, in accordance with the ATS/ERS repeatability and acceptability criteria.

Data analysis Inter-instrument reliability was assessed (using SPSS version 27.0) as shown below:

1. paired t-tests (for normally distributed data) or Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (for non-normally distributed data) and the intra-class correlation (ICC)
2. technical error of measurement (TEM) and coefficient of variability (CV)
3. Bland Altman plots and limits of agreement

Following the analyses, hand dynamometers were considered reliable for measuring DHGS if they fulfilled all of the following four criteria: 1) there was no significant difference between mean values 2) the ICC value was >0.90 3) relative TEM and CV values were <2% and ≤5%, respectively 4) the LOA were <6.5kg

Similarly, spirometers were considered reliable for measuring one or more lung function parameter(s) (FEV1, FVC and PEFR) if they fulfilled all of the following five criteria: 1) there was no significant difference between mean values 2) the ICC value was >0.90 3) relative TEM and CV values were <2% and ≤5%, respectively 4) the mean difference (bias) was <0.10 L for FEV1 and FVC, and <0.30 L/sec for PEFR 5) the LOA for FEV1 and FVC did not exceed 0.35 L and 0.50 L, respectively

Software/equipment used to create/collect the data: Microsoft Excel, Windows Office 16

Software/equipment used to manipulate/analyse the data: Data was analyzed with SPSS version 27.0 (IBM Inc, Chicago IL).