Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina. Departamento de Patologia. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina. Departamento de Cirurgia. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Rev Saude Publica. 2024 Feb 19;58:01. doi: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430. eCollection 2024.
This study aims to propose a comprehensive alternative to the Bland-Altman plot method, addressing its limitations and providing a statistical framework for evaluating the equivalences of measurement techniques. This involves introducing an innovative three-step approach for assessing accuracy, precision, and agreement between techniques, which enhances objectivity in equivalence assessment. Additionally, the development of an R package that is easy to use enables researchers to efficiently analyze and interpret technique equivalences.
Inferential statistics support for equivalence between measurement techniques was proposed in three nested tests. These were based on structural regressions with the goal to assess the equivalence of structural means (accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements obtained from the same subject), using analytical methods and robust approach by bootstrapping. To promote better understanding, graphical outputs following Bland and Altman's principles were also implemented.
The performance of this method was shown and confronted by five data sets from previously published articles that used Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are available for free and with installation instructions at Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH.
Although easy to communicate, the widely cited and applied Bland and Altman plot method is often misinterpreted, since it lacks suitable inferential statistical support. Common alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each measurement technique. It may be possible to test whether two techniques have full equivalence by preserving graphical communication, in accordance with Bland and Altman's principles, but also adding robust and suitable inferential statistics. Decomposing equivalence into three features (accuracy, precision, and agreement) helps to locate the sources of the problem when fixing a new technique.
本研究旨在提出一种综合替代 Bland-Altman 图法的方法,解决其局限性,并为评估测量技术的等效性提供一个统计框架。这涉及引入一种创新的三步方法来评估技术的准确性、精密度和一致性,从而提高等效性评估的客观性。此外,开发一个易于使用的 R 包,使研究人员能够有效地分析和解释技术等效性。
在三个嵌套测试中提出了对测量技术等效性的推断统计支持。这些测试基于结构回归,旨在评估结构均值的等效性(准确性)、结构方差的等效性(精密度)以及与结构等分线的一致性(从同一主体获得的测量值的一致性),使用分析方法和通过自举进行稳健处理。为了促进更好的理解,还实现了遵循 Bland 和 Altman 原则的图形输出。
展示了这种方法的性能,并通过之前使用 Bland 和 Altman 方法的五组来自已发表文章的数据进行了比较。一个案例表现出严格的等效性,三个案例表现出部分等效性,一个案例表现出较差的等效性。包含开放代码和数据的开发的 R 包可免费在 Harvard Dataverse 上获取,网址为 https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH。
虽然 Bland 和 Altman 图法易于沟通,但由于缺乏适当的推断统计支持,它经常被误解。常见的替代方法,如 Pearson 相关系数或有序最小二乘线性回归,也无法找到每个测量技术的弱点。根据 Bland 和 Altman 的原则,通过保留图形沟通,有可能测试两种技术是否具有完全等效性,但也需要添加稳健和适当的推断统计。将等效性分解为三个特征(准确性、精密度和一致性)有助于在修复新技术时找到问题的根源。