Reporting standards for Bland–Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice

Abstract

Background and objectives: To carry out a cross-sectional survey of the medical literature on laboratory research papers published later than 2012 and available in the common search engines (PubMed, Google Scholar) on the quality of statistical reporting of method comparison studies using Bland-Altman (B-A) analysis. Methods: Fifty clinical studies were identified which had undertaken method comparison of laboratory analytes using B-A. The reporting of B-A was evaluated using a predesigned checklist with following six items: (1) correct representation of x-axis on B-A plot, (2) representation and correct definition of limits of agreement (LOA), (3) reporting of confidence interval (CI) of LOA, (4) comparison of LOA with a priori defined clinical criteria, (5) evaluation of the pattern of the relationship between difference (y-axis) and average (x-axis) and (6) measures of repeatability. Results and interpretation: The x-axis and LOA were presented correctly in 94%, comparison with a priori clinical criteria in 74%, CI reporting in 6%, evaluation of pattern in 28% and repeatability assessment in 38% of studies. Conclusions: There is incomplete reporting of B-A in published clinical studies. Despite its simplicity, B-A appears not to be completely understood by researchers, reviewers and editors of journals. There appear to be differences in the reporting of B-A between laboratory medicine journals and other clinical journals. A uniform reporting of B-A method will enhance the generalizability of results.

The Reliability and Concurrent Validity of PainMAP Software for Automated Quantification of Pain Drawings on Body Charts of Patients With Low Back Pain

“…Although Bland‐Altman analysis is the most popular method used for assessing agreement between 2 methods of measurement, clinical studies usually report incomplete data of Bland‐Altman analyses . Our study performed a robust statistical analysis, and we reported the data following a previous checklist used to analyze the reporting data of the Bland‐Altman analysis . A small SEM and MDC 95 were found of the number of pain sites and the pain area analyzed by PainMAP.…”

“…Also, there was a strong relationship for the number of pain sites and the pain area between PainMAP and ImageJ software. Although Bland‐Altman analysis is the most popular method used for assessing agreement between 2 methods of measurement, clinical studies usually report incomplete data of Bland‐Altman analyses . Our study performed a robust statistical analysis, and we reported the data following a previous checklist used to analyze the reporting data of the Bland‐Altman analysis .…”

Stressing the accuracy: Wrist‐worn wearable sensor validation over different conditions

“…When a significant correlation was found between measurement means and differences, data were log transformed before being analyzed, and results were reported as the systematic bias ± 2 ( e a − 1)/( e a + 1), where is the mean of the two measurements, a is 1.96 standard deviation of the differences in the log scale, and e is the Euler's number (Euser, Dekker, & le Cessie, ). In this step, accuracy was determined by testing the bias significance and reporting LOAs with their relative 95% confidence intervals (Chhapola et al, ). For each measure in each condition, we accepted only LOAs within 150% of the gold standard reference value in that condition, as this a priori criterion has been used in previous studies assessing the accuracy of PPG sensors (e.g., Charlot et al, ).…”

Reporting of method comparison studies: a review of advice, an assessment of current practice, and specific suggestions for future reports

“…10 Confidence intervals for the limits of agreement are rarely presented in medical studies. 4,11 This may in part be because methods to calculate these values easily are not readily available, 10,12 compared with software that is used to carry out other frequently used statistical tests.…”