Mark Jones1, Annette Dobson, Sue O'Brian. 1. The University of Queensland, School of Population Health, Queensland, Australia. m.jones@sph.uq.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, we are not aware of a method to assess graphically on one simple plot agreement between more than two observers making continuous measurements on the same subjects. METHODS: We aimed to develop a simple graphical method to assess agreement between multiple observers using continuous measurements. The Bland-Altman graphical method for assessing agreement between two observers using continuous measures was modified and extended to accommodate multiple observers. Mathematical formulae are derived and real data examples used to illustrate the proposed method. RESULTS: The examples show that the proposed graphical method of assessing agreement provides clinically useful information. This information includes estimates of the limits of agreement with the mean and a visual means for determining these limits over the range of measurements. In a data example that included five readers' measurements of 40 lung lesions, the intra-class correlation (ICC) was 0.84 indicating readers can reliably measure the lesions. However, the estimated limits of agreement with the mean were -1.1 to 1.1 cm implying that the readers' measurements can plausibly differ from the mean estimated tumour size by more than 1 cm. This is a clinically significant difference according to the study authors. In addition, a plot of the limits of agreement with the mean by mean tumour size shows heterogeneous agreement presumably due to the varying degrees of definition at the edge of the lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed graphical method of assessing agreement can be used alongside other measures such as ICC for reporting on reproducibility in studies of multiple observers making continuous measurements.
BACKGROUND: Currently, we are not aware of a method to assess graphically on one simple plot agreement between more than two observers making continuous measurements on the same subjects. METHODS: We aimed to develop a simple graphical method to assess agreement between multiple observers using continuous measurements. The Bland-Altman graphical method for assessing agreement between two observers using continuous measures was modified and extended to accommodate multiple observers. Mathematical formulae are derived and real data examples used to illustrate the proposed method. RESULTS: The examples show that the proposed graphical method of assessing agreement provides clinically useful information. This information includes estimates of the limits of agreement with the mean and a visual means for determining these limits over the range of measurements. In a data example that included five readers' measurements of 40 lung lesions, the intra-class correlation (ICC) was 0.84 indicating readers can reliably measure the lesions. However, the estimated limits of agreement with the mean were -1.1 to 1.1 cm implying that the readers' measurements can plausibly differ from the mean estimated tumour size by more than 1 cm. This is a clinically significant difference according to the study authors. In addition, a plot of the limits of agreement with the mean by mean tumour size shows heterogeneous agreement presumably due to the varying degrees of definition at the edge of the lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed graphical method of assessing agreement can be used alongside other measures such as ICC for reporting on reproducibility in studies of multiple observers making continuous measurements.
Authors: D H W Steel; L Downey; K Greiner; H Heimann; T L Jackson; Z Koshy; D A H Laidlaw; L Wickham; Y Yang Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Konrad Stawiski; Joanna Trelińska; Dobromiła Baranska; Iwona Dachowska; Katarzyna Kotulska; Sergiusz Jóźwiak; Wojciech Fendler; Wojciech Młynarski Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Martin J Willemink; Richard A P Takx; Anouk L M Eikendal; Ricardo P J Budde; Tim Leiner; Christian P Mol; Ivana Isgum; Pim A de Jong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John Rodgers; Rosie Hales; Lee Whiteside; Jacqui Parker; Louise McHugh; Anthea Cree; Marcel van Herk; Ananya Choudhury; Peter Hoskin; Alan McWilliam; Cynthia L Eccles Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Alexandra Van Brummen; Julia P Owen; Theodore Spaide; Colin Froines; Randy Lu; Megan Lacy; Marian Blazes; Emily Li; Cecilia S Lee; Aaron Y Lee; Matthew Zhang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Annelies Van Eyck; Sofie Eerens; Dominique Trouet; Eline Lauwers; Kristien Wouters; Benedicte Y De Winter; Johanna H van der Lee; Koen Van Hoeck; Kristien J Ledeganck Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Jenny J Ko; Mark S Ballard; Tamara Shenkier; Jessica Simon; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Gillian Fyles; Shilo Lefresne; Philippa Hawley; Charlie Chen; Michael McKenzie; Isabella Ghement; Justin J Sanders; Rachelle Bernacki; Scott Jones Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-11-24
Authors: Esther Pompe; Pim A de Jong; Werner U de Jong; Richard A P Takx; Anouk L M Eikendal; Martin J Willemink; Matthijs Oudkerk; Ricardo P J Budde; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315