PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1112040

Statistical evaluation of method-comparison data.

Abstract

Comparison of two methods for determining a substance is a common procedure in clinical chemistry. Almost without exception, normal theory statistics are used with the tacit assumption that the data under test show gaussian distributions. Experience has led us to question this assumption for populations of differences between values obtained by two methods applied to common samples and for populations of paired values for each method as used in correlation analysis. Data are presented from our laboratory to illustrate these points, as well as an examination of data from relevant papers that appeared in this journal from 1968 through 1973. These examples indicate that incorrect interpretation of results because of insufficient attention to non-gaussian distribution is a real and present danger. We present a systematic approach to the statistical aspect of comparing methods that enables one to avoid this problem.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G T Wu, S L Twomey, R E Thiers. 1975. Statistical evaluation of method-comparison data.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1112040/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Duplication in a medical department of tests previously performed in a primary sector].

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an insufficient flow of information from the primary to the secondary sector was the cause of unnecessary duplications of investigations. From practitioners of 202 patients admitted to a medical department information about paraclinical examinations during the previous year was obtained. In all 111 general practitioners participated. An average of 3.0 blood analyses and 0.9 other investigations were carried out on each patient. 44% of the patients were not investigated at all. An average of 1.9 blood analyses and 0.2 other investigations on each patient were repeated. 22% of the repetitions in both cases were due to insufficient communication between the practitioner and the hospital. These figures seem low and insufficient communication between the primary and the secondary sector appears to be a minor problem.

Blood Chemical Analysis