Bias estimation in method comparison studies

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 881-892

  Magari, Robert T ^a  

^a BECKMAN COULTER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Binomial distribution; Maximum likelihood estimation; Normal distribution; Poisson distribution

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; BLOOD CELL COUNT; CALCULATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DENSITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MODEL; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HEMOGLOBINS; HUMANS; LEUKOCYTE COUNT; LEUKOCYTES; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONOCYTES; NEUTROPHILS; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 9244254246     PISSN: 10543406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/BIP-200035450     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Altman, D. G., Bland, J. M. (1983). Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 32:307-317.
2. Bartko, J. J. (1994). General methodology II. Measures of agreement: A single procedure. Stat. Med. 13:737-745.
3. Blackwood, L. G., Bradley, E. L. (1991). An omnibus test for comparing two measuring devices. J. Qual. Tech. 23:12-16.
4. Cornbleet, P. J., Gochman, N. (1979). Incorrect least-squares regression coefficient in method-comparison analysis. Clin. Chem. 25:432-438.
5. Golub, G. H. (1973). Some modified matrix eigenvalue problems. SIAM Rev. 15:318-334.
6. Houwen, B. (1990). Random errors in haematology tests: A process control approach. Clin. Lab. Haematol. 12:157-168.
7. Hutson, A. D., Wilson, D. C., Geiser, E. A. (1998). Measuring relative agreement: Echocardiographer versus computer. J. Agr. Biol. Env. Stat. 3:163-174.
8. Jones, A. R., Twedt, D., Swaim, W., Gottfried, E. (1996). Diurnal change of blood count analytes in normal subjects. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 106:723-727.
9. Krouwer, J. S. (1972). Setting performance goals and evaluating total analytical error for diagnostic assays. Clin. Chem. 48:919-927.
10. Lin, L. K. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255-268.
11. Lindstrom, M. J., Bates, D. M. (1998). Newton-Raphson and EM algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83:1014-1022.
12. Linnet, K. (1993). Evaluation of regression procedures for method comparison studies. Clin. Chem. 39:424-432.
13. Magari, R. T. (2002). Evaluating agreement between two analytical methods in clinical chemistry. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 38:1021-1025.
14. Passing, H., Bablok, W. (1983). A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem. 21:709-720.
15. Petersen, P. H., Stöckl, D., Blaabjerg, O., Pedersen, B., Birkemose, E., Thienpont, L., Lassen, J. F., Kjeldsen, J. (1997). Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of a field method with a reference method by use of difference plots. Clin. Chem. 43:2039-2046.
16. Pinheiro, J. C., Bates, D. M. (1995). Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the non-linear mixed-effects model. Comp. Graph. Stat. 4:12-35.
17. SAS/Stat User's Guide, Version 8. 2000. SAS Institute, Gary, NC.
18. St. Laurent, R. T. (1998). Evaluating agreement with a gold standard in method comparison studies. Biometrics 54:537-545.
19. Westgard, J. O., Hunt, M. R. (1972). Use and interpretation of common statistical tests in method-comparison studies. Clin. Chem. 19:49-57.