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.
Currently, the medical imaging methods based on artificial intelligence are developing rapidly, and the related literature reports are increasing year by year. However, there is no special reporting standard, and the reporting of the results is not standardized. In order to improve the report quality of this kind of research and help readers and evaluators evaluate the quality of this kind of research more scientifically, a checklist for artificial intelligence in medical imaging (CLAIM) was put forward abroad. This paper introduces the content of CLAIM and explains its items.