4.7 Article

A graphical method for assessing agreement with the mean between multiple observers using continuous measures

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 1308-1313

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyr109

Keywords

Accuracy; precision; reliability; reproducibility; agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods We aimed to develop a simple graphical method to assess agreement between multiple observers using continuous measurements. The Bland-Altman graphical method for assessing agreement between two observers using continuous measures was modified and extended to accommodate multiple observers. Mathematical formulae are derived and real data examples used to illustrate the proposed method. Results The examples show that the proposed graphical method of assessing agreement provides clinically useful information. This information includes estimates of the limits of agreement with the mean and a visual means for determining these limits over the range of measurements. In a data example that included five readers' measurements of 40 lung lesions, the intra-class correlation (ICC) was 0.84 indicating readers can reliably measure the lesions. However, the estimated limits of agreement with the mean were -1.1 to 1.1 cm implying that the readers' measurements can plausibly differ from the mean estimated tumour size by more than 1 cm. This is a clinically significant difference according to the study authors. In addition, a plot of the limits of agreement with the mean by mean tumour size shows heterogeneous agreement presumably due to the varying degrees of definition at the edge of the lesions. Conclusions The proposed graphical method of assessing agreement can be used alongside other measures such as ICC for reporting on reproducibility in studies of multiple observers making continuous measurements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available