Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388357›Full record

SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2019

The reliability of the ankle brachial index: a systematic review.

Sarah Casey, Sean Lanting, Christopher Oldmeadow, Vivienne Chuter

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Arterial Stiffness and Ankle-Brachial Index - Cross-Sectional Study of 259 Primary Care Patients ≥50 Year-Old.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah CaseyPO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258 Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4024-1012
Sean LantingPO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258 Australia.
Christopher Oldmeadow2CReDITSS - HMRI, School of Medicine and Public Health, Newcastle, Australia.
Vivienne ChuterPO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258 Australia.
Hunter Water · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ankle brachial index (ABI) is widely used in clinical practice as a non-invasive method to detect the presence and severity of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Current guidelines suggest that it should be used to monitor potential progression of PAD in affected individuals. As such, it is important that the test is reliable when used for repeated measurements, by the same or different health practitioners. This systematic review aims to examine the literature to evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the ABI.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL Complete was conducted to 20 January 2019. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant studies and extracted the data. Methodological quality was determined using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability (QAREL) Checklist.

resultsFifteen studies of ABI reliability in a range of patient populations were identified as suitable for inclusion in the review: seven considered inter-rater reliability, four intra-rater reliability, and four studies evaluated both inter- and intra-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was found to be highly variable, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) ranging from poor to excellent (ICC 0.42-1.00), while intra-rater also demonstrated considerable variation, with ICCs from 0.42-0.98. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of statistical information reported.

conclusionsResults of included studies suggest the inter- and intra-tester reliability of the ABI is acceptable. However, inconsistencies in obtaining systolic pressure measurements, calculating ABI values, and incomplete reporting of methodologies and statistical analysis make it difficult to determine the validity of the results of included studies. Further research, with more consistent reliability methodology, statistical analysis and reporting conducted in populations at risk of PAD is needed to conclusively determine the ABI reliability.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnkle Brachial IndexFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeripheral Arterial DiseaseReproducibility of ResultsAnkle brachial indexLower extremity artery diseasePeripheral arterial diseaseReliabilityRepeatabilityReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID31388357
PMCPMC6679535
OpenAlexW2964583320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.