4.4 Article

Performance characteristics of scintigraphic measurement of gastric emptying of solids in healthy participants

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 1076-+

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2012.01972.x

关键词

inter-subject; intra-subject; reproducibility; variation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [PO1-DK-68055, RO1-DK-67071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Gastric emptying (GE) is measured in pharmacodynamic and diagnostic studies. Our aim was to assess inter- and intra-subject coefficients of variation (COV) of scintigraphic GE measurements in healthy subjects, and associations of GE with gender and body mass index (BMI). Methods Data from participants with scintigraphic measurements of gastric emptying of solids were analyzed. Primary endpoints were gastric emptying T1/2 (GE T1/2) and GE at 1, 2, 3, and 4 h. Key Results The patient cohort consisted of 105 males and 214 females; at least two studies were performed in 47 subjects [16 males (M), 32 females (F)]. Inter-subject COV (COVinter) for GE T1/2 were similar in M and F: overall 24.5% (M 26.0%, F 22.5%); COV are predictably lowest for GE at 4 h (COVinter 9.6%). COVintra for T1/2 and GE at 4 h were overall 23.8% and 12.6%, and were similar to COVinter values. Gender (but not age or BMI) was significantly associated with GE T1/2 [P < 0.001, F 127.6 +/- 28.7 (SD) min; M 109.9 +/- 28.6 min] and with GE at 1 h and 2 h. Repeat GE T1/2 values in 47 participants were significantly correlated (r = 0.459, P < 0.001) with median difference of -6 min (mean -1.6, range -56 to 72 min). BlandAltman plots showed ? GE T1/2 similarly distributed across mean GE T1/2 100155 min, and across studies conducted 90600 days apart. Conclusions & Inferences Inter-subject variations in scintigraphic GE results are only slightly higher than the intra-subject measurements, which are also reproducible over time in healthy volunteers. Gender, but not BMI, is significantly associated with GE results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据