Lesley E Scott1, Jacky S Galpin, Deborah K Glencross. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine and Hematology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. lesleys@mighty.co.za
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Method comparison typically determines how well two methods agree. This is usually performed using the difference plot model, which measures absolute differences between two methods. This is often not applicable to data with wide ranges of absolute values. An alternative model is introduced that simplifies comparisons specifically for multiple methods compared to a gold standard. METHODS: The average between a new method and the gold standard is represented as a percentage of the gold standard. This is interpreted as a percentage similarity value and accommodates wide ranges of data. The representation of the percentage similarity values in a histogram format highlights the accuracy and precision of several compared methods to a gold standard. The calculation of a coefficient of variation further defines agreement between methods. RESULTS: Percentage similarity histograms of several new methods can be compared to a gold standard simultaneously, and the comparison easily visualized through use of a single 100% similarity reference line drawn common to all plots. CONCLUSION: This simple method of comparison would be particularly useful for multiple method comparison and is especially applicable for centers collating for external quality assessment or assurance programs to demonstrate differences in results between laboratories. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Method comparison typically determines how well two methods agree. This is usually performed using the difference plot model, which measures absolute differences between two methods. This is often not applicable to data with wide ranges of absolute values. An alternative model is introduced that simplifies comparisons specifically for multiple methods compared to a gold standard. METHODS: The average between a new method and the gold standard is represented as a percentage of the gold standard. This is interpreted as a percentage similarity value and accommodates wide ranges of data. The representation of the percentage similarity values in a histogram format highlights the accuracy and precision of several compared methods to a gold standard. The calculation of a coefficient of variation further defines agreement between methods. RESULTS: Percentage similarity histograms of several new methods can be compared to a gold standard simultaneously, and the comparison easily visualized through use of a single 100% similarity reference line drawn common to all plots. CONCLUSION: This simple method of comparison would be particularly useful for multiple method comparison and is especially applicable for centers collating for external quality assessment or assurance programs to demonstrate differences in results between laboratories. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Paul K Drain; Emily P Hyle; Farzad Noubary; Kenneth A Freedberg; Douglas Wilson; William R Bishai; William Rodriguez; Ingrid V Bassett Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Lesley E Scott; John A Crump; Emma Msuya; Anne B Morrissey; Willem F Venter; Wendy S Stevens Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Cathy Logan; Monique Givens; Jeffrey T Ives; Marie Delaney; Michael J Lochhead; Robert T Schooley; Constance A Benson Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Lesley E Scott; Lara D Noble; Jackie Moloi; Linda Erasmus; Willem D F Venter; Wendy Stevens Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: John A Crump; Lesley E Scott; Emma Msuya; Anne B Morrissey; Ekyafyose E Kimaro; John F Shao; Wendy S Stevens Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Etienne Karita; Nzeera Ketter; Matt A Price; Kayitesi Kayitenkore; Pontiano Kaleebu; Annet Nanvubya; Omu Anzala; Walter Jaoko; Gaudensia Mutua; Eugene Ruzagira; Joseph Mulenga; Eduard J Sanders; Mary Mwangome; Susan Allen; Agnes Bwanika; Ubaldo Bahemuka; Ken Awuondo; Gloria Omosa; Bashir Farah; Pauli Amornkul; Josephine Birungi; Sarah Yates; Lisa Stoll-Johnson; Jill Gilmour; Gwynn Stevens; Erin Shutes; Olivier Manigart; Peter Hughes; Len Dally; Janet Scott; Wendy Stevens; Pat Fast; Anatoli Kamali Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240