The Bland-Altman method should not be used when one of the two measurement methods has negligible measurement errors

Background The Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) method is almost universally used to compare two measurement methods when the outcome is continuous, despite warnings regarding the often-violated strong underlying statistical assumptions. In settings where only a single measurement per individual has been performed and one of the two measurement methods is exempt (or almost) from any measurement error, the LoA method provides biased results, whereas this is not the case for linear regression. Methods Thus, our goal is to explain why this happens and illustrate the advantage of linear regression in this particular setting. For our illustration, we used two data sets: a sample of simulated data, where the truth is known, and data from a validation study on the accuracy of a smartphone image-based dietary intake assessment tool. Results Our results show that when one of the two measurement methods is exempt (or almost) from any measurement errors, the LoA method should not be used as it provides biased results. In contrast, linear regression of the differences on the precise method was unbiased. Conclusions The LoA method should be abandoned in favor of linear regression when one of the two measurement methods is exempt (or almost) from measurement errors.

Automated summary

When one of the two measurement methods is exempt (or almost) from any measurement errors, the commonly used Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) method produces biased results, while linear regression provides unbiased results.