8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Studies of agreement examine the distance between readings made by different devices or observers measuring the same quantity. If the values generated by each device are close together most of the time then we conclude that the devices agree. Several different agreement methods have been described in the literature, in the linear mixed modelling framework, for use when there are time-matched repeated measurements within subjects.

          Methods

          We provide a tutorial to help guide practitioners when choosing among different methods of assessing agreement based on a linear mixed model assumption. We illustrate the use of five methods in a head-to-head comparison using real data from a study involving Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients and matched repeated respiratory rate observations. The methods used were the concordance correlation coefficient, limits of agreement, total deviation index, coverage probability, and coefficient of individual agreement.

          Results

          The five methods generated similar conclusions about the agreement between devices in the COPD example; however, some methods emphasized different aspects of the between-device comparison, and the interpretation was clearer for some methods compared to others.

          Conclusions

          Five different methods used to assess agreement have been compared in the same setting to facilitate understanding and encourage the use of multiple agreement methods in practice. Although there are similarities between the methods, each method has its own strengths and weaknesses which are important for researchers to be aware of. We suggest that researchers consider using the coverage probability method alongside a graphical display of the raw data in method comparison studies. In the case of disagreement between devices, it is important to look beyond the overall summary agreement indices and consider the underlying causes. Summarising the data graphically and examining model parameters can both help with this.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Statistical Methods Used to Test for Agreement of Medical Instruments Measuring Continuous Variables in Method Comparison Studies: A Systematic Review

          Background Accurate values are a must in medicine. An important parameter in determining the quality of a medical instrument is agreement with a gold standard. Various statistical methods have been used to test for agreement. Some of these methods have been shown to be inappropriate. This can result in misleading conclusions about the validity of an instrument. The Bland-Altman method is the most popular method judging by the many citations of the article proposing this method. However, the number of citations does not necessarily mean that this method has been applied in agreement research. No previous study has been conducted to look into this. This is the first systematic review to identify statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments. The proportion of various statistical methods found in this review will also reflect the proportion of medical instruments that have been validated using those particular methods in current clinical practice. Methodology/Findings Five electronic databases were searched between 2007 and 2009 to look for agreement studies. A total of 3,260 titles were initially identified. Only 412 titles were potentially related, and finally 210 fitted the inclusion criteria. The Bland-Altman method is the most popular method with 178 (85%) studies having used this method, followed by the correlation coefficient (27%) and means comparison (18%). Some of the inappropriate methods highlighted by Altman and Bland since the 1980s are still in use. Conclusions This study finds that the Bland-Altman method is the most popular method used in agreement research. There are still inappropriate applications of statistical methods in some studies. It is important for a clinician or medical researcher to be aware of this issue because misleading conclusions from inappropriate analyses will jeopardize the quality of the evidence, which in turn will influence quality of care given to patients in the future.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Confidence interval estimation for the Bland-Altman limits of agreement with multiple observations per individual.

            G Y Zou (2013)
            The limits of agreement (LoA) method proposed by Bland and Altman has become a standard for assessing agreement between different methods measuring the same quantity. Virtually, all method comparison studies have reported only point estimates of LoA due largely to the lack of simple confidence interval procedures. In this article, we address confidence interval estimation for LoA when multiple measurements per individual are available. Separate procedures are proposed for situations when the underlying true value of the measured quantity is assumed changing and when it is perceived as stable. A fixed number of replicates per individual is not needed for the procedures to work. As shown by the worked examples, the construction of these confidence intervals requires only quantiles from the standard normal and chi-square distributions. Simulation results show the proposed procedures perform well. A SAS macro implementing the methods is available on the publisher's website.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Statistical Methods in Assessing Agreement

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nstevens@uwaterloo.ca
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                12 June 2020
                12 June 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 154
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4305.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.4305.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.46078.3d, ISNI 0000 0000 8644 1405, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, , University of Waterloo, ; 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6149-5797
                Article
                1022
                10.1186/s12874-020-01022-x
                7291585
                32532218
                7181e68b-f9f3-4419-81bc-04436ad3a58c
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 18 April 2019
                : 19 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000038, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada;
                Award ID: RGPIN-2019-04212
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                method comparison studies,limits of agreement,agreement,concordance correlation coefficient,repeated measures

                Comments

                Comment on this article