Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Export

by: J. M. Bland, D. G. Altman

Lancet, Vol. 1, No. 8476. (8 February 1986), pp. 307-310.

[Posts]

View FullText article

Pubmed, Hubmed, Rent at DeepDyve

stsaft's tags for this article

aha comparison methods statistics sync

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

stsaft, guhjy, jclau, rabio, lynleypage, cquinsac, ebuckle2, durduran, meeri

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

agreement, aha, align, blandaltman, blandlatman, classic, clinicalmeasurement, clinical-trials, comparison, correlation, measurement, methods, statistical, statistical_validation, statistics, sync

Abstract

In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.

@article{citeulike:1423604, abstract = {In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.}, author = {Bland, J. M. and Altman, D. G.}, citeulike-article-id = {1423604}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2868172}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=2868172}, day = {8}, issn = {0140-6736}, journal = {Lancet}, keywords = {aha, comparison, methods, statistics, sync}, month = {February}, number = {8476}, pages = {307--310}, posted-at = {2009-01-22 06:12:32}, priority = {2}, title = {Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.}, url = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2868172}, volume = {1}, year = {1986} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1423604 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1423604 N2 - In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability. IS - 8476 JF - Lancet SN - 0140-6736 EP - 310 TI - Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. VL - 1 SP - 307 KW - aha KW - comparison KW - methods KW - statistics KW - sync AU - Bland, JM AU - Altman, DG PY - 1986/02/08/ UR - http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2868172 ER -

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Export

Citation Format