Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:21:05.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bias in a prehospital esophageal detector device trial: lessons learned

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

P. Richard Verbeek ,
Glen Bandiera ,
Brian Morris  and
Dennis St. Pierre
P. Richard Verbeek*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Services, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Science Centre, University of Toronto
Glen Bandiera
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Services, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto
Brian Morris
Affiliation:
Toronto Ambulance Service, Toronto, Ont.
Dennis St. Pierre
Affiliation:
Toronto Ambulance Service, Toronto, Ont.
*
BG-15, Emergency Services, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto ON M4N 3M5; 416 392-3885; fax 416 397-9060; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

Our goals were to determine whether selection bias occurred in a prehospital study comparing an esophageal detector device (EDD) to a disposable capnometer for detecting esophageal intubation, and to determine whether such a bias would have changed the study’s conclusions about EDD effectiveness.

Methods:

In a study of patients requiring prehospital intubation, we determined the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the EDD for detecting esophageal intubation. We then compared intubation success rate in patients who were enrolled in the study (n = 129) to that in eligible patients who were excluded from it (n = 107). After finding that the incidence of failed intubation was higher in the “excluded” group, we used sensitivity and specificity parameters derived from the study population to assess whether EDD test characteristics would differ in studied vs. excluded patients.

Results:

The first intubation attempt was successful in 125 of 129 study patients and 76 of 107 excluded patients (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), confirming the presence of selection bias. The negative predictive value of the EDD for esophageal intubation was 98% in the study cohort and would have been 77% in patients like those excluded (i.e., difficult intubation cases).

Conclusions:

Conclusion: The high “first attempt” intubation success rate seen in this study was due to selective exclusion of failed intubations. This selection bias led to a clinically important overestimation of the EDD’s negative predictive value. Bias may substantially alter the estimations of test accuracy reported in scientific studies. To reduce the chance of unrecognized selection bias in studies of diagnostic tests, investigators must determine whether recruited subjects resemble patients in whom the test will ultimately be used.

Keywords

emergency medical servicesclinical trialintubationselection bias
Type
EM Advances • Progrès De La MU
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 2000 , pp. 163 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2000

References

1.White, SJ, Slovis, CM. Inadvertent esophageal intubation in the field: reliance on a fool’s “gold standard.” Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:89–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Falk, JL, Sayre, MR. Confirmation of airway placement. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:273–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Reid, MC, Lachs, MS, Feinstein, AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Pearl, WS. A hierarchical outcomes approach to test assessment. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bozeman, WP, Hexter, D, Liang, HK, Kelen, GD. Esophageal detector device versus detection of end-tidal carbon dioxide level in emergency intubation. Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:595–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Morgan, D, Trompler, V.Concerns about intubation placement aids [letter]. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:928–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Jenkins, WA, Verdile, VP, Paris, PM. The syringe aspiration technique to verify endotracheal tube position. Am J Emerg Med 1994;12:413–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cardoso, MMSC, Banner, MJ, Melker, RJ, Bjoraker, DG. Portable devices used to detect endotracheal intubation during emergency situation: a review. Crit Care Med 1998;26:957–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Marley, CD, Eitel, DR, Koch, MF, Hess, DR, Taigman, MA. Prehospital use of a prototype esophageal detection device: A word of caution! Prehosp Disaster Med 1996;11:223–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Pelucio, M, Halligan, L, Dhindsa, H.Out-of-hospital experience with the syringe esophageal detector device. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:563–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Ardagh, M, Moodie, K.The esophageal detector device can give false positives for tracheal intubation. J Emerg Med 1998;16:747–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Davis, DP, Stephen, KAC, Vilke, GM. Inaccuracy in endotracheal tube verification using a toomey syringe. J Emerg Med 1999;17:35–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Sheps, SB, Schechter, MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a survey of current medical research. JAMA 1984;252:2418–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Mower, WR. Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Anton, WR, Gordon, RW, Jordan, TM, Posner, KL, Cheney, FW. A disposable end-tidal CO2 detector to verify endotracheal intubation. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:271–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.MacLeod, BA, Heller, MB, Gerard, J, Yealy, DM, Menegazzi, JJ. Verification of endotracheal tube placement with colorimetric end-tidal CO2 detection. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:267–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.OLeary, JJ, Pollare, BJ, Ryan, MJ. A method of detecting oesophageal intubation of confirming tracheal intubation. Anaesth Intens Care 1988;16:299–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Wee, MYK. The oesophageal detector device: assessment of a new method to distinguish oesophageal from tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 1988;43:27–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Altman, DG, Bland, JM. Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994;308:1552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Deyo, RA, Haselkorn, J, Hoffman, R, Kent, DL. Designing studies of diagnostic tests for low back pain or radiculopathy. Spine 1994;19:2057S-65S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Doubilet, P, Herman, PG. Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. AJR 1981;137:1055–8.Google Scholar
22.Sox, HC. The evaluation of diagnostic tests: principles, problems and new developments. Annu Rev Med 1996;47:463–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Altman, DG, Bland, JM. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 1994;309:102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed