Reporting quality assessment of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China from 2014 to 2016_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

LIU Tiantian ¹ , ZHONG Weihua ¹ , LU Mengjie ² , CHEN Yu ¹ , ZHOU Chongchong ³ , WEN Hao ⁴ ,  LIU Yuxiu ¹

1. Department of Medical Statistics, Jinling Hospital, Southern Medical University, Nanjing, 210002, P.R.China;
2. Medical Imaging Center, Jingling Hospital, Nanjing, 210002, P.R.China;
3. Department of Medical Statistics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210002, P.R.China;
4. Information Department, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, 210002, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

LIU Yuxiu, Email: liu_yuxiu@163.com

Keywords：

Bland-Altman method; Consistency; Report quality

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201709019

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China from 2014 to 2016. Methods WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect literature about the application of Bland-Altman method from 2014 to 2016 in China. Two reviewers screened literature, extracted data, and the data were then statistically analyzed by SPSS 22.0 software. Results A total of 376 articles were included. The published articles on Bland-Altman method had major flaws (not conforming to reporting standards) in the application conditions, evaluation indexes, graphic depiction and so on. Merely 11.4% of the literature set the clinically acceptable consensus values in the pre-period studies. Merely one literature (0.3%) correctly compared the 95%CI of 95%LoA with the clinically acceptable threshold which had been set previously. The offer rates of the differences between the two measurements and the 95%CI, 95%LoA and 95%CI of 95%LoA in the figure were 95.9%, 9.5%, 94.6% and 4.4%, respectively. Conclusions The reporting quality of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China is of low quality, specifically not conforming to reporting standards. We should strengthen the introduction of Bland-Altman methodology to improve the reporting quality.

Citation： LIU Tiantian, ZHONG Weihua, LU Mengjie, CHEN Yu, ZHOU Chongchong, WEN Hao, LIU Yuxiu. Reporting quality assessment of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China from 2014 to 2016. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(1): 67-73. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201709019 Copy

1.	陈卉. Bland-Altman分析在临床测量方法一致性评价中的应用. 中国卫生统计, 2007, 24(3): 308-309.
2.	Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician, 1983, 32(3): 307-317.
3.	Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, 1(8476): 931-936.
4.	闻浩, 陆梦洁, 刘玉秀, 等. 定量测量Bland-Altman一致性评价方法研究及临床应用. 医学研究生学报, 2015, 28(10): 1107-1111.
5.	萨建, 刘桂芬. 定量测量结果的一致性评价及Bland-Altman法的应用. 中国卫生统计, 2011, 28(4): 409-411.
6.	李镒冲, 李晓松. 两种测量方法定量测量结果的一致性评价. 现代预防医学, 2007, 34(17): 3263-3266.
7.	李云飞, 马建锋, 陈晓婷. 检测结果一致性评价方法的选择. 临床检验杂志, 2015, 33(8): 622-625.
8.	Olofsen E, Dahan A, Borsboom G, et al. Improvements in the application and reporting of advanced Bland-Altman methods of comparison. J Clin Monit Comput, 2015, 29(1): 127-139.
9.	Zaki R, Vulgiba A, Ismail R, et al. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PloS One, 2012, 7(5): e37908.
10.	杨建鑫, 鲁立, 左琦, 等. 医学期刊论文中的析因设计、生存分析及Bland-Altman法常见错误分析. 编辑学报, 2016, 28(3): 234-236.
11.	Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, et al. Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem, 2002, 48(5): 801-802.
12.	Jones M, Dobson A, O'Brian S. A graphical method for assessing agreement with the mean between multiple observers using continuous measures. Int J Epidemiol, 2011, 40(5): 1308-1313.
13.	李荣娟, 苏武锦. Bland-Altman分析法在临床检验方法比较的实例应用和绘图介绍. 国际检验医学杂志, 2013, 34(20): 2727-2729.
14.	Bland JM, Altman DG, Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet, 1995. 346(8982): 1085-1087.
15.	黄茜, 梁酩珩, 覃海燕. 基于Bland-Altman差异分析图法系统误差的检出. 中国当代医药, 2013, 20(14): 110-111.
16.	缪华章, 陈林, 刘玉秀. 定量方法对比研究一致性评价Bland-Altman法LoA的可信区间估计. 中国卫生统计, 2014, 31(1): 64-67.
17.	陆梦洁, 刘玉秀, 缪华章, 等. Bland-Altman一致性评价的样本含量估计. 中国卫生统计, 2015, 32(3): 537-539.
18.	Mantha S, Roizen MF, Fleisher LA, et al. Comparing methods of clinical measurement: reporting standards for Bland and Altman analysis. Anesth Analg, 2000, 90(3): 593.
19.	Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, et al. Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem, 2002, 48(5): 801-802.
20.	Berthelsen PG, Nilsson LB. Researcher bias and generalization of results in bias and limits of agreement analyses: a commentary based on the review of 50 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica papers using the Altman-Bland approach. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2006, 50(9):1111-3.
21.	Chhapola V, Kanwal SK, Brar R. Reporting standards for Bland-Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice. Ann Clin Biochem, 2015, 52( 3): 382-386.

1. 陈卉. Bland-Altman分析在临床测量方法一致性评价中的应用. 中国卫生统计, 2007, 24(3): 308-309.
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician, 1983, 32(3): 307-317.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, 1(8476): 931-936.
4. 闻浩, 陆梦洁, 刘玉秀, 等. 定量测量Bland-Altman一致性评价方法研究及临床应用. 医学研究生学报, 2015, 28(10): 1107-1111.
5. 萨建, 刘桂芬. 定量测量结果的一致性评价及Bland-Altman法的应用. 中国卫生统计, 2011, 28(4): 409-411.
6. 李镒冲, 李晓松. 两种测量方法定量测量结果的一致性评价. 现代预防医学, 2007, 34(17): 3263-3266.
7. 李云飞, 马建锋, 陈晓婷. 检测结果一致性评价方法的选择. 临床检验杂志, 2015, 33(8): 622-625.
8. Olofsen E, Dahan A, Borsboom G, et al. Improvements in the application and reporting of advanced Bland-Altman methods of comparison. J Clin Monit Comput, 2015, 29(1): 127-139.
9. Zaki R, Vulgiba A, Ismail R, et al. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PloS One, 2012, 7(5): e37908.
10. 杨建鑫, 鲁立, 左琦, 等. 医学期刊论文中的析因设计、生存分析及Bland-Altman法常见错误分析. 编辑学报, 2016, 28(3): 234-236.
11. Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, et al. Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem, 2002, 48(5): 801-802.
12. Jones M, Dobson A, O'Brian S. A graphical method for assessing agreement with the mean between multiple observers using continuous measures. Int J Epidemiol, 2011, 40(5): 1308-1313.
13. 李荣娟, 苏武锦. Bland-Altman分析法在临床检验方法比较的实例应用和绘图介绍. 国际检验医学杂志, 2013, 34(20): 2727-2729.
14. Bland JM, Altman DG, Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet, 1995. 346(8982): 1085-1087.
15. 黄茜, 梁酩珩, 覃海燕. 基于Bland-Altman差异分析图法系统误差的检出. 中国当代医药, 2013, 20(14): 110-111.
16. 缪华章, 陈林, 刘玉秀. 定量方法对比研究一致性评价Bland-Altman法LoA的可信区间估计. 中国卫生统计, 2014, 31(1): 64-67.
17. 陆梦洁, 刘玉秀, 缪华章, 等. Bland-Altman一致性评价的样本含量估计. 中国卫生统计, 2015, 32(3): 537-539.
18. Mantha S, Roizen MF, Fleisher LA, et al. Comparing methods of clinical measurement: reporting standards for Bland and Altman analysis. Anesth Analg, 2000, 90(3): 593.
19. Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, et al. Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem, 2002, 48(5): 801-802.
20. Berthelsen PG, Nilsson LB. Researcher bias and generalization of results in bias and limits of agreement analyses: a commentary based on the review of 50 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica papers using the Altman-Bland approach. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2006, 50(9):1111-3.
21. Chhapola V, Kanwal SK, Brar R. Reporting standards for Bland-Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice. Ann Clin Biochem, 2015, 52( 3): 382-386.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting quality assessment of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation in China from 2014 to 2016

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content