Comparaison de deux méthodes de mesure d'une même grandeur : méthode de Bland et Altman

Grenier, B.; Dubreuil, M.; Journois, Didier

doi:10.1016/s0750-7658(00)00109-x

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During the last decades, many research reported on the two related but clearly different notions of test-retest, namely, reliability and agreement (e.g. Bland and Altman, 1986;Grenier et al, 2000;Halligan, 2002;Kottner et al, 2011;Vieira and Corrente, 2011). In this study, following Kottner et al (2011), we define reliability as the capacity of a test or any other measurement tool to differentiate between respondents when measured twice under the same conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest: Agreement or reliability?

Berchtold

2016

Methodological Innovations

146

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Test-retest is a concept that is routinely evaluated during the validation phase of many measurement tools. However, this term covers at least two related but very different concepts: reliability and agreement. Reliability is the ability of a measure applied twice upon the same respondents to produce the same ranking on both occasions. Agreement requires the measurement tool to produce twice the same exact values. An analysis of research papers showed that the distinction between both concepts remains anything but clear, and that the current practice is to evaluate reliability only, generally on the basis of the sole Pearson's correlation. This practice is very problematic in the context of longitudinal studies because it becomes difficult to determine whether a difference between two successive observations is attributable to a real change of the respondents or only to the characteristics of the measurement tool, which then leads to a possible misinterpretation of the results. More focus should be given on the real interpretation of linear correlation, and when agreement is required in addition to reliability, then correct alternative, such as the Bland-Altman plot, should be more generally used.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest: Agreement or reliability?

Berchtold

2016

Methodological Innovations

146

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A limitation to these and some other studies is that they characterised device agreement with correlation coefficient and linear regression . Correlation and linear regression do not measure agreement, which may be at odds with the linear relationship . Correlation largely reflects the variability in the subjects being measured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Cardiac output monitoring with thermodilution pulse‐contour analysis vs. non‐invasive pulse‐contour analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Intravenous fluid boluses guided by changes in stroke volume improve some outcomes after major surgery, but invasive measurments may limit use. From October 2016 to May 2018, we compared the agreement and trending ability of a photoplethysmographic device (Clearsight) with a PiCCO, calibrated by thermodilution, for haemodynamic variables in 20 adults undergoing major elective surgery. We analysed 4519 measurement pairs, including before and after 68 boluses of 250 ml crystalloid. The bias and precision of stroke volume measurement by Clearsight were −0.89 ± 4.78 ml compared with the invasive pulse‐contour cardiac output device. The coefficient of agreement for stroke volume variation after fluid boluses between the two devices was 0.79 (‘strong’). Fluid boluses that increased stroke volume by ≥ 10% increased mean absolute volume (SD) and mean percentage (SD) stroke volume measurements similarly for the invasive pulse‐contour cardiac output and Clearsight devices: 9 (4) ml vs. 8 (4) ml and 16% (8%) vs. 15% (10%), respectively, p > 0.05. The non‐invasive Clearsight pulse‐contour analysis was similar to an invasive pulse‐contour device in measuring absolute and changing stroke volumes during major surgery.

show abstract

“…Finally, the agreement between tests was determined using the method of Bland and Altman. 25,56,57,60 This analysis involves determining the bias (estimated by the mean difference, d and the standard deviation of the differences, s d ), and the limits of agreement of the measurements (quantified by d ± 1.96s d ), which provide an interval within which 95 per cent of differences between measurements by the two methods are expected to lie. In the present study, it was chosen to present the coefficient of agreement (COA), 48,55 which refers to ± 1.96s d .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between clinical and laboratory methods assessing tonic and cross‐link components of accommodation and vergence

Neveu¹,

Priot

Philippe³

et al. 2015

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although different optometric tests of accommodation and vergence rely on the same basic principles, the results of this study indicate that clinical and laboratory methods actually involve distinct components. These differences, which are induced by methodological choices, must be taken into account, when comparing studies or when selecting a test to investigate a particular oculomotor component.

show abstract

Comparaison de deux méthodes de mesure d'une même grandeur : méthode de Bland et Altman

Cited by 24 publications

References 7 publications

Test–retest: Agreement or reliability?

Test–retest: Agreement or reliability?

Cardiac output monitoring with thermodilution pulse‐contour analysis vs. non‐invasive pulse‐contour analysis

Agreement between clinical and laboratory methods assessing tonic and cross‐link components of accommodation and vergence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About