Tholen D W
College of American Pathologists, Traverse City, Mich.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992 Jul;116(7):746-56.
With the increase in demand for linearity assessment, a wide variety of analysis techniques have been advocated. There is no consensus on optimal techniques. This article reviews different approaches that have been advocated by the College of American Pathologists, by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, and by manufacturers of diagnostic methods and controls. This is not a review of all statistical techniques proposed for linearity assessment. I discuss four basic categories of methods, with the first and simplest being visual review. The second general approach includes the conventional statistical techniques based on least-squares regression; this includes an equation for the line and statistical tests for linearity and for curvature. The third general approach involves comparison of slopes for line segments, or "deltas." This approximates the visual assessment of linearity. The fourth approach involves comparing observed and expected values, with some allowance for differences. Comparisons can be made for observed single results, means of replicates, or components of variance. Allowances for error can be internal goals or goals that are recommended for clinical usefulness. Each approach has strengths in different aspects of linearity assessment, including intuitive appeal, statistical rigor, and objectivity. Similarly, each approach has limitations that are not always obvious.
随着对线性评估需求的增加,人们提倡了各种各样的分析技术。对于最佳技术尚无共识。本文回顾了美国病理学家学会、美国国家临床实验室标准委员会以及诊断方法和对照品制造商所提倡的不同方法。这并非对所有提出的用于线性评估的统计技术的综述。我讨论了四类基本方法,第一种也是最简单的是目视检查。第二种一般方法包括基于最小二乘法回归的传统统计技术;这包括直线方程以及线性和曲率的统计检验。第三种一般方法涉及线段斜率或“差值”的比较。这近似于线性的目视评估。第四种方法涉及比较观察值和预期值,并对差异有所考虑。可以对观察到的单个结果、重复测量的均值或方差分量进行比较。误差容限可以是内部目标或推荐用于临床实用性的目标。每种方法在线性评估的不同方面都有优势,包括直观吸引力、统计严谨性和客观性。同样,每种方法都有并非总是显而易见的局限性。