Clinimetrics of the Lanarkshire Oximetry Index for patients with leg ulcers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractAnkle Brachial Pressure Index (ABPI) measurement has long been considered the gold standard of vascular assessment for people with lower limb ulceration. Despite this, only around 15% of patients in the United Kingdom who require an ABPI measurement undergo the assessment. The Lanarkshire Oximetry Index (LOI) is a cheaper and arguably more accessible approach to vascular assessment and was initially proposed as an alternative to the ABPI in 2000. No synthesis of evidence related to the LOI has been performed since its introduction into the literature. Primary studies were sought to determine the clinimetric properties of the LOI and its level of agreement with ABPI assessments. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BNI, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the British Library (online search) were conducted. Reference lists of identified studies were also reviewed to identify additional studies. Three primary studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting data from 307 patients and 584 limbs assessed using both the LOI and ABPI. All three studies reported fair to moderate kappa values for interrater reliability (κ = 0.290–0.747) and statistically significant positive correlation coefficients (r = 0.37, p < 0.001 in two studies) between the LOI and ABPI. The combined data from the three studies indicated a sensitivity of 52% (41.78–62.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and specificity of 96.08% (93.4–97.9, 95% CI) for the LOI using the ABPI as a reference. Additional data are required to indicate the safety of the LOI in practice. Data are also required to determine if the LOI is more acceptable to clinicians compared to the ABPI and whether there are any barriers/enablers to its implementation in practice. Given the relatively low specificity of the LOI, it may be beneficial to combine measurement of the LOI with a subjective clinical risk assessment tool to improve the sensitivity of this alternative approach to vascular assessment.