Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Assessing the accuracy of Seismofit® as an estimate of preoperative maximal oxygen consumption in patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary, colorectal, and gastro-oesophageal cancer
Main finding · Linear association, Seismofit® vs CPET VO2 peakResult — go to the resultPearson r 0.111 95% CI −0.242 to 0.437Authors' conclusion
There was no evidence of linear association between Seismofit®-estimated VO2 peak and objectively measured VO2 peak by CPET in patients undergoing assessment for major abdominal cancer surgery. This finding was consistent across all subgroup and exploratory analyses. Seismofit® tended to overestimate VO2 peak with a high degree of bias.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary, colorectal, or gastro-oesophageal cancer undergoing preoperative assessmentcompleted both cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and Seismofit®
- Participants
- 33 patients
- Exposure
- Seismofit®-estimated vs CPET-measured VO2 peak
- Outcome
- Relationship between Seismofit®-estimated VO2 peak and CPET-measured VO2 peak
Methodological detailssingle-centre, blinded
- Single-centre
- Blinded
Main finding
Linear association, Seismofit® vs CPET VO2 peak
Pearson r
0.111
95% CI −0.242 to 0.437
P = 0.539
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Bias (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Bias and limits of agreement, Seismofit® vs CPETSD 8.8; interval = 95% limits of agreement · large bias | 12.8 (−4.5 to 30.0) |
Association in hepato-pancreato-biliary or gastro-oesophageal subgroup (subgroup)
- No association between Seismofit®-estimated and CPET-measured VO2 peak
Association with commonly reported CPET variables
- No association between Seismofit®-estimated VO2 peak and commonly reported CPET variables
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →