Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 7;23(6):2900.
doi: 10.3390/s23062900.

Measurement Uncertainty in Clinical Validation Studies of Sensors

Affiliations

Measurement Uncertainty in Clinical Validation Studies of Sensors

John Mark Ansermino et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

Accurate clinical sensors and devices are essential to support optimal medical decision-making, and accuracy can be demonstrated through the conduct of clinical validation studies using validated reference sensors and/or devices for comparison. Typically unmeasurable, the true reference value can be substituted with an accepted physiological measurement with an associated uncertainty. We describe a basic model of measurement uncertainty that specifies the factors that may degrade the accuracy of an observed measurement value from a sensor, and we detail validation study design strategies that may be used to quantify and minimize these uncertainties. In addition, we describe a model that extends the observed measurement uncertainty to the resultant clinical decision and the factors that may impact the uncertainty of this decision. Clinical validation studies should be designed to estimate and minimize uncertainty that is unrelated to the sensor accuracy. The contribution of measurement observation uncertainty to clinical decision-making should be minimized but also acknowledged and incorporated into the clinical decision-making process.

Keywords: accuracy; agreement; bias; clinical decision-making; device validation; measurement; precision; reference device; sensors; uncertainty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

References

    1. Sjoding M.W., Dickson R.P., Iwashyna T.J., Gay S.E., Valley T.S. Racial Bias in Pulse Oximetry Measurement. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;383:2477–2478. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2029240. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Okunlola E.O., Lipnick M.S., Batchelder P.B., Bernstein M., Feiner J.R., Bickler E.P. Pulse Oximeter Performance, Racial Inequity, and the Work Ahead. Respir. Care. 2021;67:252–257. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09795. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Valbuena V.S.M., Merchant R.M., Hough C.L. Racial and Ethnic Bias in Pulse Oximetry and Clinical Outcomes. JAMA Intern. Med. 2022;182:699. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1903. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ISO 5725-4:2020 [(accessed on 2 January 2023)];Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results—Part 4: Basic Methods for the Determination of the Trueness of a Standard Measurement Method. 2020 Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/69421.html.
    1. Le Manach Y., Collins G. Disagreement between cardiac output measurement devices: Which device is the gold standard? Br. J. Anaesth. 2016;116:451–453. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev356. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources