Literature DB >> 9799762

Validity of linear regression in method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data?

D Stöckl1, K Dewitte, L M Thienpont.   

Abstract

We compared the application of ordinary linear regression, Deming regression, standardized principal component analysis, and Passing-Bablok regression to real-life method comparison studies to investigate whether the statistical model of regression or the analytical input data have more influence on the validity of the regression estimates. We took measurements of serum potassium as an example for comparisons that cover a narrow data range and measurements of serum estradiol-17beta as an example for comparisons that cover a wide data range. We demonstrate that, in practice, it is not the statistical model but the quality of the analytical input data that is crucial for interpretation of method comparison studies. We show the usefulness of ordinary linear regression, in particular, because it gives a better estimate of the standard deviation of the residuals than the other procedures. The latter is important for distinguishing whether the observed spread across the regression line is caused by the analytical imprecision alone or whether sample-related effects also contribute. We further demonstrate the usefulness of linear correlation analysis as a first screening test for the validity of linear regression data. When ordinary linear regression (in combination with correlation analysis) gives poor estimates, we recommend investigating the analytical reason for the poor performance instead of assuming that other linear regression procedures add substantial value to the interpretation of the study. This investigation should address whether (a) the x and y data are linearly related; (b) the total analytical imprecision (s(a,tot)) is responsible for the poor correlation; (c) sample-related effects are present (standard deviation of the residuals >> s(a,tot)); (d) the samples are adequately distributed over the investigated range; and (e) the number of samples used for the comparison is adequate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9799762

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  14 in total

1.  Assessment of bias with emphasis on method comparison.

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

Review 2.  Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents.

Authors:  A Rousseau; P Marquet; J Debord; C Sabot; G Lachâtre
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Using Radar Plots to Demonstrate the Accuracy and Precision of 6 Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Authors:  Scott Pardo; Nancy Dunne; David A Simmons
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-06-12

4.  Comparative clinical study of canine and feline total blood cell count results with seven in-clinic and two commercial laboratory hematology analyzers.

Authors:  Martina Becker; Andreas Moritz; Urs Giger
Journal:  Vet Clin Pathol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.180

5.  How Should Blood Glucose Meter System Analytical Performance Be Assessed?

Authors:  David A Simmons
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-31

Review 6.  Ultra-high sensitivity analysis of estrogens for special populations in serum and plasma by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry: Assay considerations and suggested practices.

Authors:  Qingqing Wang; Clementina Mesaros; Ian A Blair
Journal:  J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 4.292

7.  Simultaneous determination of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole in dried plasma and urine spots.

Authors:  Daniel Gonzalez; Chiara Melloni; Brenda B Poindexter; Ram Yogev; Andrew M Atz; Janice E Sullivan; Susan R Mendley; Paula Delmore; Amy Delinsky; Kanecia Zimmerman; Andrew Lewandowski; Barrie Harper; Kenneth C Lewis; Daniel K Benjamin; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez
Journal:  Bioanalysis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.695

8.  Out of the Laboratory and Into the Field: Validation of Portable Cell Culture Protocols.

Authors:  Thomas W McDade; Jacob E Aronoff; Adam K K Leigh; Eric D Finegood; Rachel M Weissman-Tsukamoto; Gene H Brody; Gregory E Miller
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.864

9.  Blood Substrate Collection and Handling Procedures under Pseudo-Field Conditions: Evaluation of Suitability for Inflammatory Biomarker Measurement.

Authors:  Karen Sugden; Andrea Danese; Idan Shalev; Benjamin S Williams; Avshalom Caspi
Journal:  Biodemography Soc Biol       Date:  2015

10.  In vitro evaluation of fluorescence glucose biosensor response.

Authors:  Mamdouh Aloraefy; T Joshua Pfefer; Jessica C Ramella-Roman; Kim E Sapsford
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.