Myths and methodologies: Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Myths and methodologies : Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index. / Olsen, Markus Harboe; Riberholt, Christian Gunge; Berg, Ronan M. G.; Møller, Kirsten.

In: Experimental Physiology, Vol. 109, No. 4, 2024, p. 614-623.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Olsen, MH, Riberholt, CG, Berg, RMG & Møller, K 2024, 'Myths and methodologies: Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index', Experimental Physiology, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 614-623. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP091327

APA

Olsen, M. H., Riberholt, C. G., Berg, R. M. G., & Møller, K. (2024). Myths and methodologies: Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index. Experimental Physiology, 109(4), 614-623. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP091327

Vancouver

Olsen MH, Riberholt CG, Berg RMG, Møller K. Myths and methodologies: Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index. Experimental Physiology. 2024;109(4):614-623. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP091327

Author

Olsen, Markus Harboe ; Riberholt, Christian Gunge ; Berg, Ronan M. G. ; Møller, Kirsten. / Myths and methodologies : Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index. In: Experimental Physiology. 2024 ; Vol. 109, No. 4. pp. 614-623.

Bibtex

@article{ea9c820efaf24eedb54c395766167398,
title = "Myths and methodologies: Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index",
abstract = "The mean flow index-usually referred to as Mx-has been used for assessing dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) for almost 30 years. However, concerns have arisen regarding methodological consistency, construct and criterion validity, and test-retest reliability. Methodological nuances, such as choice of input (cerebral perfusion pressure, invasive or non-invasive arterial pressure), pre-processing approach and artefact handling, significantly influence mean flow index values, and previous studies correlating mean flow index with other established dCA metrics are confounded by inherent methodological flaws like heteroscedasticity, while the mean flow index also fails to discriminate individuals with presumed intact versus impaired dCA (discriminatory validity), and its prognostic performance (predictive validity) across various conditions remains inconsistent. The test-retest reliability, both within and between days, is generally poor. At present, no single approach for data collection or pre-processing has proven superior for obtaining the mean flow index, and caution is advised in the further use of mean flow index-based measures for assessing dCA, as current evidence does not support their clinical application.",
author = "Olsen, {Markus Harboe} and Riberholt, {Christian Gunge} and Berg, {Ronan M. G.} and Kirsten M{\o}ller",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2024 The Authors. Experimental Physiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Physiological Society.",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.1113/EP091327",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "614--623",
journal = "Experimental Physiology",
issn = "0958-0670",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Myths and methodologies

T2 - Assessment of dynamic cerebral autoregulation by the mean flow index

AU - Olsen, Markus Harboe

AU - Riberholt, Christian Gunge

AU - Berg, Ronan M. G.

AU - Møller, Kirsten

N1 - © 2024 The Authors. Experimental Physiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Physiological Society.

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - The mean flow index-usually referred to as Mx-has been used for assessing dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) for almost 30 years. However, concerns have arisen regarding methodological consistency, construct and criterion validity, and test-retest reliability. Methodological nuances, such as choice of input (cerebral perfusion pressure, invasive or non-invasive arterial pressure), pre-processing approach and artefact handling, significantly influence mean flow index values, and previous studies correlating mean flow index with other established dCA metrics are confounded by inherent methodological flaws like heteroscedasticity, while the mean flow index also fails to discriminate individuals with presumed intact versus impaired dCA (discriminatory validity), and its prognostic performance (predictive validity) across various conditions remains inconsistent. The test-retest reliability, both within and between days, is generally poor. At present, no single approach for data collection or pre-processing has proven superior for obtaining the mean flow index, and caution is advised in the further use of mean flow index-based measures for assessing dCA, as current evidence does not support their clinical application.

AB - The mean flow index-usually referred to as Mx-has been used for assessing dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) for almost 30 years. However, concerns have arisen regarding methodological consistency, construct and criterion validity, and test-retest reliability. Methodological nuances, such as choice of input (cerebral perfusion pressure, invasive or non-invasive arterial pressure), pre-processing approach and artefact handling, significantly influence mean flow index values, and previous studies correlating mean flow index with other established dCA metrics are confounded by inherent methodological flaws like heteroscedasticity, while the mean flow index also fails to discriminate individuals with presumed intact versus impaired dCA (discriminatory validity), and its prognostic performance (predictive validity) across various conditions remains inconsistent. The test-retest reliability, both within and between days, is generally poor. At present, no single approach for data collection or pre-processing has proven superior for obtaining the mean flow index, and caution is advised in the further use of mean flow index-based measures for assessing dCA, as current evidence does not support their clinical application.

U2 - 10.1113/EP091327

DO - 10.1113/EP091327

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 38376110

VL - 109

SP - 614

EP - 623

JO - Experimental Physiology

JF - Experimental Physiology

SN - 0958-0670

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 385020534