Next Article in Journal
Plasma Zinc Levels in Males with Androgenetic Alopecia as Possible Predictors of the Subsequent Conservative Therapy’s Effectiveness
Next Article in Special Issue
Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization of the CDC Protocol of Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19 for Timely Diagnosis
Review

Reporting Standards for a Bland–Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews

by 1,2
1
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Kløvervænget 47, 5000 Odense, Denmark
2
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark
Diagnostics 2020, 10(5), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050334
Received: 20 March 2020 / Revised: 5 May 2020 / Accepted: 20 May 2020 / Published: 22 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Planning and Evaluating Agreement and Reliability Studies)
The Bland–Altman Limits of Agreement is a popular and widespread means of analyzing the agreement of two methods, instruments, or raters in quantitative outcomes. An agreement analysis could be reported as a stand-alone research article but it is more often conducted as a minor quality assurance project in a subgroup of patients, as a part of a larger diagnostic accuracy study, clinical trial, or epidemiological survey. Consequently, such an analysis is often limited to brief descriptions in the main report. Therefore, in several medical fields, it has been recommended to report specific items related to the Bland–Altman analysis. The present study aimed to identify the most comprehensive and appropriate list of items for such an analysis. Seven proposals were identified from a MEDLINE/PubMed search, three of which were derived by reviewing anesthesia journals. Broad consensus was seen for the a priori establishment of acceptability benchmarks, estimation of repeatability of measurements, description of the data structure, visual assessment of the normality and homogeneity assumption, and plotting and numerically reporting both bias and the Bland–Altman Limits of Agreement, including respective 95% confidence intervals. Abu-Arafeh et al. provided the most comprehensive and prudent list, identifying 13 key items for reporting (Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 569–575). An exemplification with interrater data from a local study accentuated the straightforwardness of transparent reporting of the Bland–Altman analysis. The 13 key items should be applied by researchers, journal editors, and reviewers in the future, to increase the quality of reporting Bland–Altman agreement analyses. View Full-Text
Keywords: agreement; Bland–Altman plot; confidence interval; interrater; Limits of Agreement; method comparison; repeatability; reporting; reproducibility; Tukey mean-difference plot agreement; Bland–Altman plot; confidence interval; interrater; Limits of Agreement; method comparison; repeatability; reporting; reproducibility; Tukey mean-difference plot
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Gerke, O. Reporting Standards for a Bland–Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050334

AMA Style

Gerke O. Reporting Standards for a Bland–Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews. Diagnostics. 2020; 10(5):334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gerke, Oke. 2020. "Reporting Standards for a Bland–Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews" Diagnostics 10, no. 5: 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10050334

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop