Literature DB >> 33499386

How Replicates Can Inform Potential Users of a Measurement Procedure about Measurement Error: Basic Concepts and Methods.

Werner Vach1,2, Oke Gerke3,4.   

Abstract

Measurement procedures are not error-free. Potential users of a measurement procedure need to know the expected magnitude of the measurement error in order to justify its use, in particular in health care settings. Gold standard procedures providing exact measurements for comparisons are often lacking. Consequently, scientific investigations of the measurement error are often based on using replicates. However, a standardized terminology (and partially also methodology) for such investigations is lacking. In this paper, we explain the basic conceptual approach of such investigations with minimal reference to existing terminology and describe the link to the existing general statistical methodology. This way, some of the key measures used in such investigations can be explained in a simple manner and some light can be shed on existing terminology. We encourage clearly conceptually distinguishing between investigations of the measurement error of a single measurement procedure and the comparison between different measurement procedures or observers. We also identify an unused potential for more advanced statistical analyses in scientific investigations of the measurement error.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agreement; measurement error; reliability; repeatability; replicates; reproducibility

Year:  2021        PMID: 33499386      PMCID: PMC7912560          DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)        ISSN: 2075-4418


  22 in total

Review 1.  Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed.

Authors:  Jan Kottner; Laurent Audigé; Stig Brorson; Allan Donner; Byron J Gajewski; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Chris Roberts; Mohamed Shoukri; David L Streiner
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Intervals for the assessment of measurement agreement: Similarities, differences, and consequences of incorrect interpretations.

Authors:  Michael Vock
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 2.207

4.  The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Confidence and coverage for Bland-Altman limits of agreement and their approximate confidence intervals.

Authors:  Andrew Carkeet; Yee Teng Goh
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.

Authors:  G Guyatt; S Walter; G Norman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

7.  Kappa coefficients in epidemiology: an appraisal of a reappraisal.

Authors:  H C Kraemer; D A Bloch
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  When to use agreement versus reliability measures.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 10.  Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michiel R de Boer; Annette C Moll; Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Hennie J M Völker-Dieben; Ger H M B van Rens
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.