Bland and Altman agreement method: to plot differences against means or differences against standard? An endless tale?

Author:

Cesana Bruno Mario12ORCID,Antonelli Paolo3

Affiliation:

1. Retired Associate Professor of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery , University of Brescia , Brescia , Italy

2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Unit of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Bioinformatics “Giulio A. Maccacaro” , University of Milan , Milan , Italy

3. Retired Professor of Calculus of Probabilities, Statistics and Operative Research , State Industrial Technical Institute (ITIS) Benedetto Castelli , Brescia , Brescia BS , Italy

Abstract

Abstract Objectives In the Bland and Altman analysis of agreement studies, there is some controversy whether “to plot the differences between the Standard/actual measurement method and the test/new measurement method against their mean” or “to plot the differences against the standard method”. Of course, this is not just a “graphic dispute” as a regression model is inherent in the graphical choice to test the proportional and systematic biases. Methods We revised two relevant papers claiming to plot the differences against the standard and outlined their pitfalls taking into account the underlying statistical methodology. Furthermore, we have considered the conditions (correlation between the two measurement methods and ratio of their variances) leading correlation coefficient and regression slope between differences and means or differences and standard different from zero. Results We have shown the situations in which the regression slope and the correlation coefficient calculated from the differences and means according to Bland and Altman approach or calculated from the differences and standard are closer to zero giving the minimum possible value of spurious proportional error between the two methods. Conclusions We highlighted how the calculation of the expected values of the correlation coefficients and, above all, of the regression slope can be very useful for choosing the statistical model in the context of an agreement study between two measurement methods. Finally, we outlined some recommendations for understanding the real possibility of carrying out agreement or calibration studies.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3