We report on a study designed to assess variability among three different fluorescence spectroscopy devices, four fiber optic probes, and three sets of optical calibration standards to better understand the reproducibility of measurements and interdevice comparisons of fluorescence spectroscopic data intended for clinical diagnostic use. Multiple measurements are acquired from all sets of standards using each combination of spectrometer, fiber optic probe, and optical standard. Data are processed using standard calibration methods to remove instrument-dependant responses. Processed spectra are analyzed using an analysis of variance to assess the percent variance explained by each factor that was statistically significant. Analysis of processed data confirms statistically significant differences among the spectrometers and fiber optic probes. However, no differences are found when varying calibration standards or measurement date and time. The spectrometers and fiber optic probes are significant sources of variability, but appropriate data processing substantially reduces these effects. Studies of inter- and intradevice variability are important methodological issues for optical device trials and must be included in the quality assurance studies for the clinical trial design.

Introduction. A study was designed to assess variability between different fluorescence spectroscopy devices. Measurements were made with all combinations of three devices, four probes, and thee sets of standards trays. Additionally, we made three measurements on the same day over 2 days for the same combination of device, probe, and standards tray to assess reproducibility over a day and across days.Materials and methods. The devices consisted of light sources, fiberoptics, and cameras. We measured thirteen standards and present the data from the frosted cuvette, water, and rhodamine standards. A preliminary analysis was performed with the data that were wavelength calibrated and background subtracted; however, the system has not been corrected for systematic intensity variations caused by the devices. Two analyses were performed on the rhodamine, water, and frosted cuvette standards data. The first one is based on first clustering the measurements and then looking for association between the 5 factors (device, probe, standards tray, day, measurement number) using chi-squared tests on the cross-tabulation of cluster and factor level. This showed that only device and probe were significant. We then did an analysis of variance to assess the percent variance explained by each factor that was significant from the chi-squared analysis.Results. The data were remarkably similar across the different combinations of factors. The analysis based on the clusters showed that sometimes devices alone, probes alone, but most often combinations of device and probe caused significant differences in measurements. The analysis showed that time of day, location of device, and standards trays do not vary significantly; whereas the devices and probes account for differences in measurement. We expected this type of significance using unprocessed data since the processing corrects for differences in devices. However, this analysis on raw data is useful to explore what combination of device and probe measurements should be targeted for further investigation. This experiment affirms that online quality control is necessary to obtain the best excitation-emission matrices from optical spectroscopy devices.Conclusion. The fact that the device and probe are the primary sources of variability indicates that proper correction for the transfer function of the individual devices should make the measurements essentially equivalent. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In order to improve recruitment for cervical cancer screening trials, it is necessary to analyze the effectiveness of recruitment strategies used in current trials. A trial to test optical spectroscopy for the diagnosis of cervical neoplasia recruited 1000 women from the community; the trial evaluated the emerging technology against Pap smears and colposcopically directed biopsies for cervical dysplasia. We have examined women's reasons for participating as well as the effectiveness and efficiency for each recruitment strategy. Reasons for participation were identified and compared between trials. The recruitment method that resulted in the most contacts was newspaper reportorial coverage and advertising, followed by family and friends, then television news coverage. The most cost-effective method for finding eligible women who attend the research appointment is word of mouth from a family member or friend. Recommendations are given for maximizing the efficiency of recruitment for cervical cancer screening trials.