Literature DB >> 9075596

Comparing methods of measurements.

J Ludbrook1.   

Abstract

1. The purpose of comparing two methods of measurement of a continuous biological variable is to uncover systematic differences not to point to similarities. 2. There are two potential sources of systematic disagreement between methods of measurement: fixed and proportional bias. 3. Fixed bias means that one method gives values that are higher (or lower) than those from the other by a constant amount. Proportional bias means that one method gives values that are higher (or lower) than those from the other by an amount that is proportional to the level of the measured variable. 4. It must be assumed that measurements made by either method are attended by random error: in making measurements and from biological variation. 5. Investigators often use the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) to compare methods of measurement. This cannot detect systematic biases, only random error. 6. Investigators sometimes use least squares (Model I) regression analysis to calibrate one method of measurement against another. In this technique, the sum of the squares of the vertical deviations of y values from the line is minimized. This approach is invalid, because both y and x values are attended by random error. 7. Model II regression analysis caters for cases in which random error is attached to both dependent and independent variables. Comparing methods of measurement is just such a case. 8. Least products regression is the reviewer's preferred technique for analysing the Model II case. In this, the sum of the products of the vertical and horizontal deviations of the x,y values from the line is minimized. 9. Least products regression analysis is suitable for calibrating one method against another. It is also a sensitive technique for detecting and distinguishing fixed and proportional bias between methods. 10. An alternative approach is to examine the differences between methods in order to detect bias. This has been recommended to clinical scientists and has been adopted by many. 11. It is the reviewer's opinion that the least products regression technique is to be preferred to that of examining differences, because the former distinguishes between fixed and proportional bias, whereas the latter does not.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9075596     DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.1997.tb01807.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol        ISSN: 0305-1870            Impact factor:   2.557


  53 in total

1.  Interpreting thickness changes in the diabetic macula: the problem of short-term variation in optical coherence tomography-measured macular thickening (an american ophthalmological society thesis).

Authors:  David J Browning
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2010-12

2.  Determination of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies (GADA) IgG subclasses - comparison of three immunoprecipitation assays (IPAs).

Authors:  M Hillman; C Törn; M Landin-Olsson
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2007-07-30       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  New algorithm to analyze optical coherence tomographic images quantitatively.

Authors:  Kohei Ishikawa; Yasuki Ito; Ryuji Mizutani; Masato Kikuchi; Hiroaki Nishihara; Hiroko Terasaki
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-07-27       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Venous occlusion plethysmography versus Doppler ultrasound in the assessment of leg blood flow during calf exercise.

Authors:  Simon Green; R Thorp; E J Reeder; J Donnelly; G Fordy
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Sympathetic neural recruitment strategies: responses to severe chemoreflex and baroreflex stress.

Authors:  Mark B Badrov; Charlotte W Usselman; J Kevin Shoemaker
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 3.619

6.  Validation of daily urinary creatinine excretion measurement by muscle-creatinine equivalence.

Authors:  Roberto Iacone; Lanfranco D'Elia; Bruna Guida; Antonio Barbato; Clelia Scanzano; Pasquale Strazzullo
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 2.352

7.  Comparison of baroreflex sensitivity estimated from ECG R-R and inter-systolic intervals obtained by finger plethysmography and radial tonometry.

Authors:  Juliane Viehweg; Manja Reimann; Julia Gasch; Heinz Rüdiger; Tjalf Ziemssen
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 3.575

8.  Assessment of the Cavidi ExaVir Load Assay for Monitoring Plasma Viral Load in HIV-2-Infected Patients.

Authors:  Pedro Borrego; Maria Fátima Gonçalves; Perpétua Gomes; Lavínia Araújo; Inês Moranguinho; Inês Brito Figueiredo; Isabel Barahona; José Rocha; Claudino Mendonça; Maria Cesarina Cruz; Jorge Barreto; Nuno Taveira
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Definition of ambulatory blood pressure targets for diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in relation to clinic blood pressure: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Head; Anastasia S Mihailidou; Karen A Duggan; Lawrence J Beilin; Narelle Berry; Mark A Brown; Alex J Bune; Diane Cowley; John P Chalmers; Peter R C Howe; Jonathan Hodgson; John Ludbrook; Arduino A Mangoni; Barry P McGrath; Mark R Nelson; James E Sharman; Michael Stowasser
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-04-14

10.  Can intracranial pressure be measured non-invasively bedside using a two-depth Doppler-technique?

Authors:  Lars-Owe D Koskinen; Jan Malm; Rolandas Zakelis; Laimonas Bartusis; Arminas Ragauskas; Anders Eklund
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 2.502

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.