Uncertainty Estimation in the Sphygmomanometers Calibration according to OIML R16-1 from a Legal Metrology Perspective
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1431-7116
Edilson Delgado-Trejos
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4840-478X
Vanessa Ramírez-Gómez
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-5144
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Objective: To estimate the uncertainty in the calibration of sphygmomanometers according to OIML R16-1 from a legal metrology perspective. Materials and methods: Four (4) sphygmomanometers of different brands with a resolution of 2 mmHg were selected to perform the calibration, using several direct comparisons between a sphygmomanometer and a digital standard manometer with a resolution of 0.01 mmHg, generating pressure with a pneumatic clamp. The uncertainty was estimated using the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the OIML R16-1 international recommendation. Two measurement series were computed, each with upward and decent sequence, to achieve 4 measurements each time with the corresponding errors. Results and discussion: Several uncertainty representations were achieved, in particular expressions such as type A, type B, and expanded, employing a physic modeling and a non-stochastic mathematic model. From the sphygmomanometer measurement series in calibration processes, the uncertainty contributions were analyzed, finding that the dominant uncertainty source, in most cases, is derived from the equipment resolution, followed by repeatability and hysteresis in the sphygmomanometer test processes. Conclusions: The proposed structure for estimating uncertainty follows international regulations and can be used in procedures for approval of models with a final impact on patient safety.
[2] A. Badnjevic, L. Gurbeta-Pokvic, D. Boskovic, and Z. Dzemic, “Medical devices in legal metrology,” de 4th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing MECO 2015, Budva, Montenegro, 2015, pp. 365-367. https://doi.org/10.1109/MECO.2015.7181945
[3] M. do Céu Ferreira, “The role of metrology in the field of medical devices,” Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 135-140, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2011101
[4] M. R. Paiva, O. Pohlmann-Filho, and A. Soratto, “Prospection for metrological control in medical scales and sphygmomanometers in the state of Santa Catarina-Brazil,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 575, no. 1, pp. 24-27, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/575/1/012047
[5] A. Soratto, O. Pohlmann-Filho, M. R. Paiva, R. B. Giordani, and C. Bringhenti, “Development of a system to increase the legal metrological control of measuring instruments in Brazil,” Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 304, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2014013
[6] A. F. Ramírez-Barrera, J. F. Martínez-Gómez, and E. Hidalgo-Vásquez, “Management Model for the Application of Legal Metrological Control and Conformity Assessment in Biomedical Equipment,” Revista Ingeniería Biomédica, vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 73-80, 2017. https://doi.org/10.24050/19099762.n21.2017.1175
[7] A. Rouse and T. Marshall, “The extent and implications of sphygmomanometer calibration error in primary care,” J. Hum. Hypertens., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 587-591, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001241
[8] International Organization of Legal Metrology, OIML R 16-1: Non-invasive mechanical sphygmomanometers, 2002. https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_r/r016-1-e02.pdf/at_download/file
[9] C. H. d. M. Fraga, and R. F. Farias, “A more effective approach to the legal metrological control of sphygmomanometer,” OIML Bulletin, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 5-9, 2017. https://www.oiml.org/en/publications/bulletin/pdf/oiml_bulletin_october_2017.pdf
[10] A. Giordani and L. Mari, “A structural model of direct measurement,” Measurement, vol. 145, pp. 535-550, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.05.060
[11] Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 200: International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 2012. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf
[12] Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 106: Evaluation of measurement data – The role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment, 2012. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_106_2012_E.pdf
[13] PhysikalischTechnische Bundesanstalt, DKD-R 6-1: Calibration of Pressure Gauges, 2014.
[14] L. Kirkup and R. B. Frenkel, An introduction to uncertainty in measurement using the gum (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement), Cambridge University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755538
[15] Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM 100: Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, 2008. https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/documents/documentation/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf
[16] J. Sousa, A. M. Reynolds, and Á. S. Ribeiro, “A comparison in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in analytical chemistry testing between the use of quality control data and a regression analysis,” Accred. Qual. Assur., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 207-214, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-011-0874-y
[17] O. Sima and M. C. Lépy, “Application of GUM Supplement 1 to uncertainty of Monte Carlo computed efficiency in gamma-ray spectrometry,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 109, pp. 493-499, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2015.11.097
[18] M. Azpurua, C. Tremola, and E. J. Paez-Barrios, “Comparison of the GUM and Monte Carlo Methods for the Uncertainty Estimation in Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing,” Progress in Electromagnetics Research B, vol. 34, pp. 125-144, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2528/PIERB11081804
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.