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 Experiment Videos

Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading

J M Bland1, D G Altman

  • 1Department of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK.

Lancet (London, England)
|October 21, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials.

The British journal of dermatology·2019
Same author

'Allocation concealment': the evolution and adoption of a methodological term.

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2018
Same author

[Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide].

Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))·2018
Same author

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

Research involvement and engagement·2017
Same author

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2017
Same author

Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21<sup>st</sup> Project.

Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·2017

When comparing measurement methods, plotting differences against the standard measurement can be misleading. Plotting differences against the average measurement is a more reliable approach to assess method agreement.

Area of Science:

  • Measurement science
  • Biostatistics
  • Method comparison studies

Background:

  • Comparing new measurement techniques to established standards is crucial in scientific research.
  • Assessing the agreement between two measurement methods requires careful statistical analysis.
  • Misleading graphical representations can lead to incorrect conclusions about method performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the reliability of graphical methods for comparing new and standard measurement techniques.
  • To demonstrate the potential for spurious correlations when plotting differences against standard measurements.
  • To propose a statistically sound graphical method for assessing measurement agreement.

Main Methods:

  • Theoretical analysis of graphical methods for measurement comparison.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Illustrative practical example using real-world data.
  • Comparison of difference plots against standard measurements versus average measurements.

    • Main Results:

    • Plotting the difference against the standard measurement can falsely suggest a relationship between difference and magnitude.
    • Plotting the difference against the average of the standard and new measurements avoids this misleading effect.
    • Theoretical and practical evidence supports the use of average-based plots for accurate assessment.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of graphical method significantly impacts the interpretation of measurement agreement.
    • Plotting differences against the average measurement provides a less biased assessment of method concordance.
    • Researchers should utilize average-based plots to avoid misinterpreting measurement method comparisons.