liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Error analysis of a natural breathing calibration method for respiratory inductive plethysmography
Linköping University, The Institute of Technology. Linköping University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Instrumentation.
2001 (English)In: Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, ISSN 0140-0118, E-ISSN 1741-0444, Vol. 39, no 3, 310-314 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Respiratory volumes are measured non-invasively by recording rib cage and abdominal motions using respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP). Qualitative diagnostic calibration (QDC) of RIP is based on the natural variability in the relative rib-cage-to-abdomen contribution during tidal breathing. QDC does not require subject cooperation but it has previously been shown that accuracy may deteriorate when breathing pattern changes. The aim of this study was to investigate the causes and situations where QDC accuracy deteriorates. The QDC method was compared to PRA (calibration during voluntarily preferential rib cage or abdomen breathing) in ten adults. A reference RIP calibration was obtained from all validation data (REF). The PRA method had better accuracy than the QDC method (p<0.01). The volumetric error ranged between 10% and 136% with QDC and between 5% and 33% with PRA. The PRA calibration factors were within 6% of those from REF, while the QDC rib-cage factor was underestimated by 15% and the abdominal factor was overestimated by 38%. Small natural variability in the relative rib-cage-to-abdomen contribution was related to poor accuracy. Each compartment's variability depended on its magnitude, which is a violation of the QDC assumptions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2001. Vol. 39, no 3, 310-314 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-29925Local ID: 15350OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-29925DiVA: diva2:250744
Available from: 2009-10-09 Created: 2009-10-09 Last updated: 2017-12-13

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Authority records BETA

Strömberg, Tomas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Strömberg, Tomas
By organisation
The Institute of TechnologyBiomedical Instrumentation
In the same journal
Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 503 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf