Abstract
Agreement between two methods of clinical measurement can be quantified using the differences between observations made using the two methods on the same subjects. The 95% limits of agreement, estimated by mean difference 1.96 standard deviation of the differences, provide an interval within which 95% of differences between measurements by the two methods are expected to lie. We describe how graphical methods can be used to investigate the assumptions of the method and we also give confidence intervals. We extend the basic approach to data where there is a relationship between difference and magnitude, both with a simple logarithmic transformation approach and a new, more general, regression approach. We discuss the importance of the repeatability of each method separately and compare an estimate of this to the limits of agreement. We extend the limits of agreement approach to data with repeated measurements, proposing new estimates for equal numbers of replicates by each method on each subject, for unequal numbers of replicates, and for replicated data collected in pairs, where the underlying value of the quantity being measured is changing. Finally, we describe a nonparametric approach to comparing methods.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Estimating Mean and Standard Deviation from the Sample Size, Three Quartiles, Minimum, and Maximum
Background: We sometimes want to include in a meta-analysis data from studies where results are presented as medians and ranges or interquartile ranges rather than as means and ...
Repeatability for Gaussian and non‐Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists
Repeatability (more precisely the common measure of repeatability, the intra‐class correlation coefficient, ICC) is an important index for quantifying the accuracy of measuremen...
The Jackknife and the Bootstrap for General Stationary Observations
We extend the jackknife and the bootstrap method of estimating standard errors to the case where the observations form a general stationary sequence. We do not attempt a reducti...
Floating absolute risk: An alternative to relative risk in survival and case‐control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group
Abstract We discuss the problem of describing multiple group comparisons in survival analysis using the Cox model, and in matched case‐control studies. The standard method of co...
How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?
Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1999
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-160
- Citations
- 8441
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1177/096228029900800204