如果不对准确度、精确度和一致性进行推断,布兰-阿尔特曼图法是否有用?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Revista de saude publica Pub Date : 2024-02-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430
Paulo Sergio Panse Silveira, Joaquim Edson Vieira, José de Oliveira Siqueira
{"title":"如果不对准确度、精确度和一致性进行推断,布兰-阿尔特曼图法是否有用?","authors":"Paulo Sergio Panse Silveira, Joaquim Edson Vieira, José de Oliveira Siqueira","doi":"10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to propose a comprehensive alternative to the Bland-Altman plot method, addressing its limitations and providing a statistical framework for evaluating the equivalences of measurement techniques. This involves introducing an innovative three-step approach for assessing accuracy, precision, and agreement between techniques, which enhances objectivity in equivalence assessment. Additionally, the development of an R package that is easy to use enables researchers to efficiently analyze and interpret technique equivalences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inferential statistics support for equivalence between measurement techniques was proposed in three nested tests. These were based on structural regressions with the goal to assess the equivalence of structural means (accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements obtained from the same subject), using analytical methods and robust approach by bootstrapping. To promote better understanding, graphical outputs following Bland and Altman's principles were also implemented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The performance of this method was shown and confronted by five data sets from previously published articles that used Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are available for free and with installation instructions at Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although easy to communicate, the widely cited and applied Bland and Altman plot method is often misinterpreted, since it lacks suitable inferential statistical support. Common alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each measurement technique. It may be possible to test whether two techniques have full equivalence by preserving graphical communication, in accordance with Bland and Altman's principles, but also adding robust and suitable inferential statistics. Decomposing equivalence into three features (accuracy, precision, and agreement) helps to locate the sources of the problem when fixing a new technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":21230,"journal":{"name":"Revista de saude publica","volume":"58 ","pages":"01"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Bland-Altman plot method useful without inferences for accuracy, precision, and agreement?\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Sergio Panse Silveira, Joaquim Edson Vieira, José de Oliveira Siqueira\",\"doi\":\"10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to propose a comprehensive alternative to the Bland-Altman plot method, addressing its limitations and providing a statistical framework for evaluating the equivalences of measurement techniques. This involves introducing an innovative three-step approach for assessing accuracy, precision, and agreement between techniques, which enhances objectivity in equivalence assessment. Additionally, the development of an R package that is easy to use enables researchers to efficiently analyze and interpret technique equivalences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inferential statistics support for equivalence between measurement techniques was proposed in three nested tests. These were based on structural regressions with the goal to assess the equivalence of structural means (accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements obtained from the same subject), using analytical methods and robust approach by bootstrapping. To promote better understanding, graphical outputs following Bland and Altman's principles were also implemented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The performance of this method was shown and confronted by five data sets from previously published articles that used Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are available for free and with installation instructions at Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although easy to communicate, the widely cited and applied Bland and Altman plot method is often misinterpreted, since it lacks suitable inferential statistical support. Common alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each measurement technique. It may be possible to test whether two techniques have full equivalence by preserving graphical communication, in accordance with Bland and Altman's principles, but also adding robust and suitable inferential statistics. Decomposing equivalence into three features (accuracy, precision, and agreement) helps to locate the sources of the problem when fixing a new technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de saude publica\",\"volume\":\"58 \",\"pages\":\"01\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878685/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de saude publica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de saude publica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在提出一种全面的方法来替代布兰-阿尔特曼图法,解决其局限性,并为评估测量技术的等效性提供一个统计框架。这包括引入一种创新的三步法来评估技术之间的准确度、精确度和一致性,从而提高等效性评估的客观性。此外,还开发了一个易于使用的 R 软件包,使研究人员能够高效地分析和解释技术等效性:方法:通过三个嵌套测试为测量技术之间的等效性提供推理统计支持。这些测试以结构回归为基础,目的是评估结构均值的等效性(准确性)、结构方差的等效性(精确性)以及与结构平分线的一致性(同一受试者测量结果的一致性)。为了加深理解,还按照布兰德和阿尔特曼的原则进行了图形输出:结果:使用布兰德和阿尔特曼方法的五组数据显示了该方法的性能,并与之前发表的文章进行了对比。一个案例显示了严格的等效性,三个案例显示了部分等效性,一个案例显示了较差的等效性。开发的包含开放代码和数据的 R 软件包可在 https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH.Conclusion 的 Harvard Dataverse 免费获取,并附有安装说明:尽管布兰德和奥特曼图法易于传播,但由于缺乏适当的推断统计支持,该方法经常被误解。常见的替代方法,如皮尔逊相关法或序数最小二乘法线性回归法,也无法找到每种测量技术的弱点。根据布兰德和奥特曼的原则,可以通过保留图形交流来检验两种技术是否完全等效,但同时也要添加稳健、合适的推断统计。将等效性分解为三个特征(准确性、精确性和一致性)有助于在修正新技术时找到问题的根源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the Bland-Altman plot method useful without inferences for accuracy, precision, and agreement?

Objective: This study aims to propose a comprehensive alternative to the Bland-Altman plot method, addressing its limitations and providing a statistical framework for evaluating the equivalences of measurement techniques. This involves introducing an innovative three-step approach for assessing accuracy, precision, and agreement between techniques, which enhances objectivity in equivalence assessment. Additionally, the development of an R package that is easy to use enables researchers to efficiently analyze and interpret technique equivalences.

Methods: Inferential statistics support for equivalence between measurement techniques was proposed in three nested tests. These were based on structural regressions with the goal to assess the equivalence of structural means (accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements obtained from the same subject), using analytical methods and robust approach by bootstrapping. To promote better understanding, graphical outputs following Bland and Altman's principles were also implemented.

Results: The performance of this method was shown and confronted by five data sets from previously published articles that used Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are available for free and with installation instructions at Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH.

Conclusion: Although easy to communicate, the widely cited and applied Bland and Altman plot method is often misinterpreted, since it lacks suitable inferential statistical support. Common alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each measurement technique. It may be possible to test whether two techniques have full equivalence by preserving graphical communication, in accordance with Bland and Altman's principles, but also adding robust and suitable inferential statistics. Decomposing equivalence into three features (accuracy, precision, and agreement) helps to locate the sources of the problem when fixing a new technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revista de saude publica
Revista de saude publica PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.60%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Revista de Saúde Pública has the purpose of publishing original scientific contributions on topics of relevance to public health in general.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信