Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
Confidence Intervals01:21

Confidence Intervals

An unbiased point estimate is often insufficient to predict a population estimate, such as population mean or population proportion. In this scenario, a confidence interval is used. A confidence interval is an estimate similar to a sample proportion. However, unlike the point estimate which is a single value, the confidence interval contains a range of values. These values have lower and upper limits, known as confidence limits, and can be designated as L1 and L2, respectively.
A confidence...
Interpretation of Confidence Intervals01:19

Interpretation of Confidence Intervals

A confidence interval is a better estimate of the population than a point estimate, as it uses a range of values from a sample instead of a single value.
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals00:54

Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals

The confidence interval is the range of values around the mean that contains the true mean. It is expressed as a probability percentage. The interpretation of a 95% confidence interval, for instance, is that the statistician is 95% confident that the true mean falls within the interval. The upper and lower limits of this range are known as confidence limits. The confidence limits for the true mean are estimated from the sample's mean, the standard deviation, and the statistical factor 't,' or...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Experiences sharing of implementing Template-based Electronic Medical Record System (TEMRS) in a Hong Kong medical organization.

Journal of medical systems·2010
Same author

Decontamination issues and perceived reliability of the laryngoscope--a clinician's perspective.

Anaesthesia and intensive care·2004
Same author

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of fosinoprilat with enalaprilat and lisinopril in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic renal insufficiency.

British journal of clinical pharmacology·1999
Same author

Fosinopril/hydrochlorothiazide: single dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

British journal of clinical pharmacology·1999
Same author

Tourniquet technique for axillary block.

Anaesthesia·1996
Same author

Painless local anaesthesia for cataract surgery.

Anaesthesia and intensive care·1991

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Doppler Ultrasound-Based Leg Blood Flow Assessment During Single-Leg Knee-Extensor Exercise in an Uncontrolled Setting
09:18

Doppler Ultrasound-Based Leg Blood Flow Assessment During Single-Leg Knee-Extensor Exercise in an Uncontrolled Setting

Published on: December 15, 2023

Confidence interval approach for evaluating bias in laboratory methods.

K F Yee1

  • 1Beecham Pharmaceuticals Coldharbour Road The Pinnacles Essex Harlow CM19 5AD UK.

The Journal of Automatic Chemistry
|January 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary

Statistical bias in laboratory quantitation methods can be practically insignificant. Evaluating the confidence interval of the mean difference assesses if methods are sufficiently close, avoiding unnecessary statistical tests.

More Related Videos

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health
05:51

Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health

Published on: February 21, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Doppler Ultrasound-Based Leg Blood Flow Assessment During Single-Leg Knee-Extensor Exercise in an Uncontrolled Setting
09:18

Doppler Ultrasound-Based Leg Blood Flow Assessment During Single-Leg Knee-Extensor Exercise in an Uncontrolled Setting

Published on: December 15, 2023

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health
05:51

Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health

Published on: February 21, 2025

Area of Science:

  • Laboratory science
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Laboratory quantitation methods are crucial for accurate measurements.
  • Statistical significance of differences between methods is often interpreted as bias.
  • Minute differences may not represent practical concerns in method comparison.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose an alternative statistical approach for evaluating laboratory method agreement.
  • To determine if two quantitation methods are practically interchangeable, not just statistically different.
  • To utilize confidence intervals for assessing method comparability without additional statistical tests.

Main Methods:

  • Statistical analysis of mean values from two laboratory quantitation methods.
  • Calculation of the confidence interval for the mean difference between methods.
  • Interpretation of the confidence interval to assess practical equivalence.

Main Results:

  • A statistically significant difference does not always imply practical concern.
  • Confidence intervals of the mean difference provide a direct measure of method agreement.
  • No additional statistical tests are required beyond confidence interval calculation.

Conclusions:

  • Focusing solely on statistical significance can misrepresent practical method differences.
  • Confidence intervals effectively evaluate if laboratory methods are sufficiently close for practical use.
  • This approach simplifies method comparison by avoiding complex statistical tests.