Evaluating Agreement between Two Analytical Methods in Clinical Chemistry
- 16 October 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH in cclm
- Vol. 38 (10) , 1021-1025
- https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2000.151
Abstract
A test and a reference analytical method are usually compared for agreement based on paired data obtained from several independent subjects. Bias between two methods can be classified as constant and proportional. Bias is modeled as an average bias between two methods (constant bias) and proportional bias related to individual measurements. A weighted least square approach is followed for estimating the parameters. Estimates of constant and proportional biases are tested individually and their significance can be used to explain the sources of disagreement between two methods and help deciding a remedial strategy. The proposed model can also be used to determine an optimum combination of subjects and runs per subject and facilitate the allocation of the resources.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluating Agreement with a Gold Standard in Method Comparison StudiesPublished by JSTOR ,1998
- Measuring Relative Agreement: Echocardiographer versus ComputerJournal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, 1998
- Use of precision profiles to evaluate precision of the automated leukocyte differentialClinical Chemistry, 1996
- Evaluation of regression procedures for methods comparison studiesClinical Chemistry, 1993
- A Unified Approach to Mixed Linear ModelsThe American Statistician, 1991
- A Concordance Correlation Coefficient to Evaluate ReproducibilityPublished by JSTOR ,1989
- Incorrect least-squares regression coefficients in method-comparison analysis.Clinical Chemistry, 1979
- Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison StudiesClinical Chemistry, 1973