Imperial College London
Alternate

Professor Michael Loebinger

Faculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute

Professor of Practice (Respiratory Medicine)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7351 8337m.loebinger

 
 
//

Location

 

Fulham RoadRoyal Brompton Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{O'Neill:2020:10.1183/23120541.00363-2019,
author = {O'Neill, K and Ferguson, K and Cosgrove, D and Tunney, MM and De, Soyza A and Carroll, M and Chalmers, JD and Gatheral, T and Hill, AT and Hurst, JR and Johnson, C and Loebinger, MR and Angyalosi, G and Haworth, CS and Jensen, R and Ratjen, F and Saunders, C and Short, C and Davies, J and Elborn, JS and Bradley, JM},
doi = {10.1183/23120541.00363-2019},
journal = {European Respiratory Journal},
pages = {1--10},
title = {Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) in bronchiectasis clinical trials – Is it feasible?},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00363-2019},
volume = {6},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background:  Evaluation of  Multiple  Breath  Washout  (MBW)  set-up including staff  training, certification  and  central  “over-reading”  for  data quality  control  is  essential  to  determine  the feasibility of MBW in future bronchiectasis studies. Aims:  To assess  the  outcomes  of  a  MBW  training,  certification and  central  over-reading programme. Methods: MBW training and certification was conducted in European sites collecting LCI data in  the BronchUK clinimetrics and/or i-BEST-1 studies. The blended training programme included the use of an eLearning tool and a 1-day face-to-face session. Sites submitted MBW data to trained central over-readers who determined validity and quality. Results: Thirteen training days were delivered to 56 participants from 22 sites. 18/22 (82%) were MBW naïve. Participant knowledge and confidence increased significantly (p<0.001). By the end of the study recruitment, 15/22 sites (68%) had completed certification with a mean (range) time since training of 6.2 (3-14) months. In the BronchUK clinimetrics study, 468/589 (79%) tests met45 the quality  criteria  following  central  over-reading,  compared  with  137/236  (58%)  tests  in  the  i-BEST-1 study.   Conclusions:  LCI  is  feasible  in  a  bronchiectasis  multicentre clinical trial  setting however, consideration of site experience in terms of training as well as assessment of skill drift and the need for  re-training may  be important  to  reduce  time  to  certification  and optimise  data  quality. Longer  times  to  certification,  a  higher  percentage of  naive  sites  and  patients  with  worse  lung  function may have contributed to the lower success rate in the i-BEST-1 study.
AU  - O'Neill,K
AU  - Ferguson,K
AU  - Cosgrove,D
AU  - Tunney,MM
AU  - De,Soyza A
AU  - Carroll,M
AU  - Chalmers,JD
AU  - Gatheral,T
AU  - Hill,AT
AU  - Hurst,JR
AU  - Johnson,C
AU  - Loebinger,MR
AU  - Angyalosi,G
AU  - Haworth,CS
AU  - Jensen,R
AU  - Ratjen,F
AU  - Saunders,C
AU  - Short,C
AU  - Davies,J
AU  - Elborn,JS
AU  - Bradley,JM
DO  - 10.1183/23120541.00363-2019
EP  - 10
PY  - 2020///
SN  - 0903-1936
SP  - 1
TI  - Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) in bronchiectasis clinical trials – Is it feasible?
T2  - European Respiratory Journal
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00363-2019
UR  - https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/6/4/00363-2019.article-info
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/82382
VL  - 6
ER  -
Download