Bland J M, Altman D G
Department of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK.
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800204.
Agreement between two methods of clinical measurement can be quantified using the differences between observations made using the two methods on the same subjects. The 95% limits of agreement, estimated by mean difference +/- 1.96 standard deviation of the differences, provide an interval within which 95% of differences between measurements by the two methods are expected to lie. We describe how graphical methods can be used to investigate the assumptions of the method and we also give confidence intervals. We extend the basic approach to data where there is a relationship between difference and magnitude, both with a simple logarithmic transformation approach and a new, more general, regression approach. We discuss the importance of the repeatability of each method separately and compare an estimate of this to the limits of agreement. We extend the limits of agreement approach to data with repeated measurements, proposing new estimates for equal numbers of replicates by each method on each subject, for unequal numbers of replicates, and for replicated data collected in pairs, where the underlying value of the quantity being measured is changing. Finally, we describe a nonparametric approach to comparing methods.
两种临床测量方法之间的一致性可以通过对同一受试者使用这两种方法所做观察结果的差异来量化。通过平均差异±差异标准差的1.96倍估计的95%一致性界限提供了一个区间,预计两种方法测量之间95%的差异会落在该区间内。我们描述了如何使用图形方法来研究该方法的假设,并且我们还给出了置信区间。我们将基本方法扩展到差异与大小之间存在关系的数据,既使用简单的对数变换方法,也使用一种新的、更通用的回归方法。我们分别讨论了每种方法重复性的重要性,并将其估计值与一致性界限进行比较。我们将一致性界限方法扩展到具有重复测量的数据,针对每种方法在每个受试者上进行相等次数重复测量、不相等次数重复测量以及成对收集的重复数据(其中被测量量的基础值在变化)提出了新的估计方法。最后,我们描述了一种比较方法的非参数方法。