Literature DB >> 16536914

How to use difference plots in quantitative method comparison studies.

Patrick J Twomey1.   

Abstract

Quantitative method comparison studies are fundamental to clinical biochemistry. The interpretation of quantitative method comparison studies relied heavily on correlation and regression methods until Bland and Altman first described the concept of absolute difference plots. Since then, many clinical biochemistry journals advocate the use of difference plots; however, there is a lot of ignorance about the validity as well as the pros and cons of the various difference plots. The most important issue in quantitative method comparisons studies is to determine limits of agreement that are valid across the whole range of values in the study so that correct data interpretation and conclusions occur. This article discusses validity as well as the pros and cons of difference plots and provides means to determine limits of agreement that are valid across the whole range of values in method comparison studies. Accordingly, correct data interpretation will be more likely and better conclusions should be arrived as a result.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16536914     DOI: 10.1258/000456306776021616

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Clin Biochem        ISSN: 0004-5632            Impact factor:   2.057


  11 in total

1.  Performance of automated platelet quantification using different analysers in comparison with an immunological reference method in thrombocytopenic patients.

Authors:  Ernesto Trabuio; Sara Valverde; Francesco Antico; Fabio Manoni; Gianluca Gessoni
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.443

2.  Assessment of bias with emphasis on method comparison.

Authors:  Roger Johnson
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08

3.  Implications of method specific creatinine adjustments on General Medical Services chronic kidney disease classification.

Authors:  Timothy M Reynolds; Patrick J Twomey
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Multiple inflammatory biomarker detection in a prospective cohort study: a cross-validation between well-established single-biomarker techniques and an electrochemiluminescense-based multi-array platform.

Authors:  Bas C T van Bussel; Isabel Ferreira; Marjo P H van de Waarenburg; Marleen M J van Greevenbroek; Carla J H van der Kallen; Ronald M A Henry; Edith J M Feskens; Coen D A Stehouwer; Casper G Schalkwijk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Glycolysis inhibitors negatively bias blood glucose measurements: potential impact on the reported prevalence of diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  W S Waring; L E Evans; C T Kirkpatrick
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Use and reporting of Bland-Altman analyses in studies of self-reported versus measured weight and height.

Authors:  Katherine M Flegal; Barry Graubard; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 5.095

7.  A novel fully automated method for mitral regurgitant orifice area quantification.

Authors:  Michela Moraldo; Corinna Bergamini; Anura S N Malaweera; Niti M Dhutia; Punam A Pabari; Keith Willson; Resham Baruah; Charlotte Manisty; Justin E Davies; Xiao Y Xu; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-02       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  Agreement, Reliability, and Concurrent Validity of an Outdoor, Wearable-Based Walk Ratio Assessment in Healthy Adults and Chronic Stroke Survivors.

Authors:  Simone K Huber; Ruud H Knols; Jeremia P O Held; Tom Christen; Eling D de Bruin
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  Comparison of Four Automated Carcinoembryonic Antigen Immunoassays: ADVIA Centaur XP, ARCHITECT I2000sr, Elecsys E170, and Unicel Dxi800.

Authors:  Joonhong Park; Seungok Lee; Yeongsic Kim; Aeran Choi; Hyeyoung Lee; Jihyang Lim; Yonggoo Kim; Kyungja Han; Eun Jee Oh
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.464

10.  Validating Accuracy of a Mobile Application against Food Frequency Questionnaire on Key Nutrients with Modern Diets for mHealth Era.

Authors:  Joyce D Kusuma; Hsiao-Ling Yang; Ya-Ling Yang; Zhao-Feng Chen; Shyang-Yun Pamela Koong Shiao
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.