Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지

Statistical Test of Agreement between Measurements in Method-comparison Study

검사법의 일치도 평가를 위한 분석기법

  • Pak, Son-Il (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Oh, Tae-Ho (College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University)
  • 박선일 (강원대학교 수의과대학 및 동물의학종합연구소) ;
  • 오태호 (경북대학교 수의과대학)
  • Accepted : 2010.12.08
  • Published : 2011.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In clinical settings, researchers often want to assess agreement between two measurements (or tests) of the same continuous variable. For example, when new point-of-care analyzer for testing blood glucose level were introduced clinicians need to compare results from standard or established laboratory method of measurement to those of new or point-of-care analyzer. The question in a method-comparison study would either of two different methods be used to measure the same variable equivalently. In this paper common misuse of statistical methodologies seen in the medical literatures such as correlation coefficient and paired t-test are discussed. The Bland-Altman technique has been widely used for this purpose and provides a graphic in presentation of the findings from a method-comparison study, with a mean value of measurement, this bias and the limits of agreement. For ease of application and interpretation of this technique we discussed the analysis procedure and illustrated with two worked examples. Finally, a number of alternative ways in which data can be analysed and reported in such studies were reviewed.

Keywords

References

  1. Bass LM, Yu DY, Cullen LK. Comparison of femoral and auricular arterial blood pressure monitoring in pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2009; 36: 457-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2009.00484.x
  2. Bland M, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; I: 307-310.
  3. Deinzer M, Faissner R, Metzger T, Kaminski WE, Löhr M, Neumaier M, Brinkmann T. Comparison of two different methods for CA19-9 antigen determination. Clin Lab 2010; 56: 319-325.
  4. Dey D, Schepis T, Marwan M, Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Achenbach S. Automated Three-dimensional Quantification of Noncalcified Coronary Plaque from Coronary CT Angiography: Comparison with Intravascular US. Radiology 2010; 257: 516-522. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100681
  5. German AJ, Holden SL, Morris PJ, Biourge V. Comparison of a bioimpedance monitor with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for noninvasive estimation of percentage body fat in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71: 393-398. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.71.4.393
  6. Halvorsen PS, Sokolov A, Cvancarova M, Hol PK, Lundblad R, Tonnessen TI. Continuous cardiac output during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: pulse-contour analyses vs pulmonary artery thermodilution. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99: 484-492. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem199
  7. Hanneman SK, Jesurum-Urbaitis JT, Bickel DR. Comparison of methods of temperature measurement in swine. Lab Anim 2004; 38: 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367704323133682
  8. Hausfater P, Brochet C, Freund Y, Charles V, Bernard M. Procalcitonin measurement in routine emergency medicine practice: comparison between two immunoassays. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010; 48: 501-504.
  9. Klenner S, Bauer N, Moritz A. Evaluation of three automated human immunoturbidimetric assays for the detection of Creactive protein in dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest 2010; 22: 544-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063871002200408
  10. Lacara T, Domagtoy C, Lickliter D, Quattrocchi K, Snipes L, Kuszaj J, Prasnikar M. Comparison of point-of-care and laboratory glucose analysis in critically ill patients. Am J Crit Care 2007; 16: 336-346.
  11. Liehr P, Dedo YL, Torres S, Meininger JC. Assessing agreement between clinical measurement methods. Heart Lung 1995; 24: 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-9563(05)80043-3
  12. Lopes PC, Sousa MG, Camacho AA, Carareto R, Nishimori CT, Santos PS, Nunes N. Comparison between two methods for cardiac output measurement in propofol-anesthetized dogs: thermodilution and Doppler. Vet Anaesth Analg 2010; 37: 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00552.x
  13. MacIsaac AI, McDonald IG, Kirsner KL, Graham SA, Gill RW. Quantification of mitral regurgitation by integrated Doppler backscatter power. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 24: 690-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(94)90016-7
  14. Mosing M, Staub L, Moens Y. Comparison of two different methods for physiologic dead space measurements in ventilated dogs in a clinical setting. Vet Anaesth Analg 2010; 37: 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00548.x
  15. Petrie A, Watson P. Statistics for veterinary and animal science. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1999: 170-173.
  16. Proverbio D, Groppetti D, Spada E, Perego R. Comparison of the VIDAS and IMMULITE-2000 methods for cortisol measurement in canine serum. Vet Clin Pathol 2009; 38: 332-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-165X.2009.00135.x
  17. Szaflarski NL, Slaughter RE. Technology assessment in critical care: understanding statistical analyses used to assess agreement between methods of clinical measurement. Am J Crit Care 1996; 5: 207-216.
  18. Whittemore JC, Flatland B. Comparison of biochemical variables in plasma samples obtained from healthy dogs and cats by use of standard and microsample blood collection tubes. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010a; 237: 288-292.
  19. Whittemore JC, Flatland B. Comparison of complete blood counts in samples obtained from healthy dogs and cats by use of standard and microsample blood collection tubes. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010b; 237: 281-287.
  20. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc. 1999: 129-131.