Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Gerke O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7278016 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Gerke Oke O

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 20200522 5

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 ...[more]

PMID: 32456091

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsInferential 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionAlthough 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.

Project description:The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Bland-Altman methods for assessing the agreement between two measures are highly cited. However, these methods may often not be used to assess agreement, and when used, they are not always presented or interpreted correctly. Our objective was to evaluate the use and the quality of reporting of Bland-Altman analyses in studies that compare self-reported with measured weight and height. METHODS:We evaluated the use of Bland-Altman methods in 394 published articles that compared self-reported and measured weight and height data for adolescents or adults. Six reporting criteria were developed: assessment of the normality of the distribution of differences, a complete and correctly labeled Bland-Altman plot displaying the mean difference and limits of agreement (LOA), numerical values and confidence intervals, standard errors, or standard deviations for mean difference, numerical values of LOA, confidence intervals for LOA, and prespecified criteria for acceptable LOA. RESULTS:Only 72/394 (18%) studies comparing self-reported with measured weight and height or BMI used some form of Bland-Altman analyses. No study using Bland-Altman analyses satisfied more than four of the six criteria. Of the 72 studies, 64 gave mean differences along with confidence intervals or standard deviations, 55 provided complete Bland-Altman plots that were appropriately labeled and described, 37 provided numerical values for LOA, 4 reported that they examined the normality of the distribution of differences, 3 provided confidence intervals for LOA, and 3 had prespecified criteria for agreement. CONCLUSIONS:Bland-Altman methods appear to be infrequently used in studies comparing measured with self-reported weight, height, or BMI, and key information is missing in many of those that do use Bland-Altman methods. Future directions would be defining acceptable LOA values and improving the reporting and application of Bland-Altman methods in studies of self-reported anthropometry.

Project description:Reliable quantification in biological systems of endogenous low- and high-molecular substances, drugs and their metabolites, is of particular importance in diagnosis and therapy, and in basic and clinical research. The analytical characteristics of analytical approaches have many differences, including in core features such as accuracy, precision, specificity, and limits of detection (LOD) and quantitation (LOQ). Several different mathematic approaches were developed and used for the comparison of two analytical methods applied to the same chemical compound in the same biological sample. Generally, comparisons of results obtained by two analytical methods yields different quantitative results. Yet, which mathematical approach gives the most reliable results? Which mathematical approach is best suited to demonstrate agreement between the methods, or the superiority of an analytical method A over analytical method B? The simplest and most frequently used method of comparison is the linear regression analysis of data observed by method A (y) and the data observed by method B (x): y = α + βx. In 1986, Bland and Altman indicated that linear regression analysis, notably the use of the correlation coefficient, is inappropriate for method-comparison. Instead, Bland and Altman have suggested an alternative approach, which is generally known as the Bland-Altman approach. Originally, this method of comparison was applied in medicine, for instance, to measure blood pressure by two devices. The Bland-Altman approach was rapidly adapted in analytical chemistry and in clinical chemistry. To date, the approach suggested by Bland-Altman approach is one of the most widely used mathematical approaches for method-comparison. With about 37,000 citations, the original paper published in the journal The Lancet in 1986 is among the most frequently cited scientific papers in this area to date. Nevertheless, the Bland-Altman approach has not been really set on a quantitative basis. No criteria have been proposed thus far, in which the Bland-Altman approach can form the basis on which analytical agreement or the better analytical method can be demonstrated. In this article, the Bland-Altman approach is re-valuated from a quantitative bioanalytical perspective, and an attempt is made to propose acceptance criteria. For this purpose, different analytical methods were compared with Gold Standard analytical methods based on mass spectrometry (MS) and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), i.e., GC-MS, GC-MS/MS, LC-MS and LC-MS/MS. Other chromatographic and non-chromatographic methods were also considered. The results for several different endogenous substances, including nitrate, anandamide, homoarginine, creatinine and malondialdehyde in human plasma, serum and urine are discussed. In addition to the Bland-Altman approach, linear regression analysis and the Oldham-Eksborg method-comparison approaches were used and compared. Special emphasis was given to the relation of difference and mean in the Bland-Altman approach. Currently available guidelines for method validation were also considered. Acceptance criteria for method agreement were proposed, including the slope and correlation coefficient in linear regression, and the coefficient of variation for the percentage difference in the Bland-Altman and Oldham-Eksborg approaches.

Project description:BackgroundScoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, providing a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing policy and practice developments. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions over the last decades.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive search of nine databases and six grey literature databases for scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions. The reporting quality of the included reviews was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses, examining the conduct of the scoping reviews and exploring the breadth of research topics covered. We used Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English and Chinese-language reviews.ResultsA total of 392 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 238 English-reported reviews and 154 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The primary purposes of these reviews were to map and summarize the evidence, with a particular focus on health and nursing topics. 98.7% of reviews explicitly used the term "scoping review", and the Arksey and O'Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Thirty-five English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol for scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English were more likely to search the grey literature (P = 0.005), consult information specialists (P < 0.001) and conduct an updated search (P = 0.012) than those in Chinese. Reviews published in English had a significantly high score compared to those published in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P < 0.001). The reporting rates in English-reported reviews were higher than those in Chinese reviews for seven items, but lower for structured summary (P < 0.001), eligibility criteria (P < 0.001), data charting process (P = 0.009) and data items (P = 0.015).ConclusionThere has been a significant increase in the number of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions each year since 2020. While the research topics covered are diverse, the overall reporting quality of these reviews is need to be improved. And there is a need for greater standardization in the conduct of scoping reviews in Chinese academic institutions.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets