Olofsen Erik, Dahan Albert, Borsboom Gerard, Drummond Gordon
Department of Anesthesiology P5Q, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands,
J Clin Monit Comput. 2015 Feb;29(1):127-39. doi: 10.1007/s10877-014-9577-3. Epub 2014 May 8.
Bland and Altman have developed a measure called "limits of agreement" to assess correspondence of two methods of clinical measurement. In many circumstances, comparisons are made using several paired measurements in each individual subject. If such measurements are considered as statistically independent pairs, rather than as sets of measurements from separate individuals, limits of agreement will be too narrow. In addition, the confidence intervals for these limits will also be too narrow. Suitable software to compute valid limits of agreement and their confidence intervals is not readily available. Therefore, we set out to provide a freely available implementation accompanied by a formal description of the more advanced Bland-Altman comparison methods. We validate the implementation using simulated data, and demonstrate the effects caused by failing to take the presence of multiple paired measurements per individual properly into account. We propose a standard format of reporting that would improve analysis and interpretation of comparison studies.
布兰德和奥尔特曼开发了一种名为“一致性界限”的方法,用于评估两种临床测量方法的一致性。在许多情况下,会对每个个体受试者进行多次配对测量并进行比较。如果将这些测量视为统计上独立的对,而不是来自不同个体的测量集,一致性界限将会过窄。此外,这些界限的置信区间也会过窄。目前尚没有合适的软件来计算有效的一致性界限及其置信区间。因此,我们着手提供一个免费可用的实现,并对更先进的布兰德 - 奥尔特曼比较方法进行正式描述。我们使用模拟数据验证了该实现,并展示了未正确考虑每个个体存在多个配对测量所带来的影响。我们提出了一种标准的报告格式,这将改进比较研究的分析和解释。