Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?

Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportion...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699
1. Verfasser: Ludbrook, John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 699
container_issue 7
container_start_page 692
container_title Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology
container_volume 37
creator Ludbrook, John
description Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other. 2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used. 3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences. 4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable. 5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733988684</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733988684</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE-P0zAQxS0EYrsLXwH5xillHMeOg4QQVMsWVAGHZZG4WI4zaV3yp9iJ2n77dehuxZG5zGjmvTfSjxDKYM5ivdnOWZZBwqRi8xTiFgTP5fzwhMzOh6dkBhxEwlQOF-QyhC0ACJD8OblIgUe9UDOyXrkOjace1x5DcH1HTWeaY3CB1r2ntm93xrtuTYd9T1s0YfToA42nFodNX8Wxfty32A1v6cdxoPuNs5t_Qt-_IM9q0wR8-dCvyI9P17eLZbL6dvN58WGV2CxPZSKsFVUmlShTa0pjTMoBuAJeouV1lpeVwLquc1ZBUdjKci4LicIWpihBVYxfkden3J3v_4wYBt26YLFpTIf9GHTOeaGUVFlUqpPS-j4Ej7Xeedcaf9QM9ERZb_UEU08w9URZ_6WsD9H66uHJWLZYnY2PWKPg3Umwdw0e_ztYL66_T1P0Jye_CwMezn7jf2uZ81zon19v9O3y7u7LIv2ll_weGYucxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733988684</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Ludbrook, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><description>Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other. 2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used. 3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences. 4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable. 5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-1870</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1440-1681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20337658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Altman-Bland ; Bias ; calibration ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics &amp; numerical data ; confidence interval ; Least-Squares Analysis ; Linear Models ; loss function ; Monte Carlo Method ; non-parametric methods ; outlying values ; Pharmacological Phenomena ; Physiological Phenomena</subject><ispartof>Clinical and experimental pharmacology &amp; physiology, 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699</ispartof><rights>2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1681.2010.05376.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1440-1681.2010.05376.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337658$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><title>Clinical and experimental pharmacology &amp; physiology</title><addtitle>Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol</addtitle><description>Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other. 2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used. 3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences. 4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable. 5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</description><subject>Altman-Bland</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>calibration</subject><subject>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>confidence interval</subject><subject>Least-Squares Analysis</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>loss function</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>non-parametric methods</subject><subject>outlying values</subject><subject>Pharmacological Phenomena</subject><subject>Physiological Phenomena</subject><issn>0305-1870</issn><issn>1440-1681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE-P0zAQxS0EYrsLXwH5xillHMeOg4QQVMsWVAGHZZG4WI4zaV3yp9iJ2n77dehuxZG5zGjmvTfSjxDKYM5ivdnOWZZBwqRi8xTiFgTP5fzwhMzOh6dkBhxEwlQOF-QyhC0ACJD8OblIgUe9UDOyXrkOjace1x5DcH1HTWeaY3CB1r2ntm93xrtuTYd9T1s0YfToA42nFodNX8Wxfty32A1v6cdxoPuNs5t_Qt-_IM9q0wR8-dCvyI9P17eLZbL6dvN58WGV2CxPZSKsFVUmlShTa0pjTMoBuAJeouV1lpeVwLquc1ZBUdjKci4LicIWpihBVYxfkden3J3v_4wYBt26YLFpTIf9GHTOeaGUVFlUqpPS-j4Ej7Xeedcaf9QM9ERZb_UEU08w9URZ_6WsD9H66uHJWLZYnY2PWKPg3Umwdw0e_ztYL66_T1P0Jye_CwMezn7jf2uZ81zon19v9O3y7u7LIv2ll_weGYucxQ</recordid><startdate>201007</startdate><enddate>201007</enddate><creator>Ludbrook, John</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201007</creationdate><title>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</title><author>Ludbrook, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4726-5cc5d4685b2cabaaa23003803bec3f47bd5efff71d099cdc33696e5c9a9b08d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Altman-Bland</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>calibration</topic><topic>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>confidence interval</topic><topic>Least-Squares Analysis</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>loss function</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>non-parametric methods</topic><topic>outlying values</topic><topic>Pharmacological Phenomena</topic><topic>Physiological Phenomena</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ludbrook, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical and experimental pharmacology &amp; physiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ludbrook, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?</atitle><jtitle>Clinical and experimental pharmacology &amp; physiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol</addtitle><date>2010-07</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>692</spage><epage>699</epage><pages>692-699</pages><issn>0305-1870</issn><eissn>1440-1681</eissn><abstract>Summary 1. There are two reasons for wanting to compare measurers or methods of measurement. One is to calibrate one method or measurer against another; the other is to detect bias. Fixed bias is present when one method gives higher (or lower) values across the whole range of measurement. Proportional bias is present when one method gives values that diverge progressively from those of the other. 2. Linear regression analysis is a popular method for comparing methods of measurement, but the familiar ordinary least squares (OLS) method is rarely acceptable. The OLS method requires that the x values are fixed by the design of the study, whereas it is usual that both y and x values are free to vary and are subject to error. In this case, special regression techniques must be used. 3. Clinical chemists favour techniques such as major axis regression (‘Deming’s method’), the Passing–Bablok method or the bivariate least median squares method. Other disciplines, such as allometry, astronomy, biology, econometrics, fisheries research, genetics, geology, physics and sports science, have their own preferences. 4. Many Monte Carlo simulations have been performed to try to decide which technique is best, but the results are almost uninterpretable. 5. I suggest that pharmacologists and physiologists should use ordinary least products regression analysis (geometric mean regression, reduced major axis regression): it is versatile, can be used for calibration or to detect bias and can be executed by hand‐held calculator or by using the loss function in popular, general‐purpose, statistical software.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20337658</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0305-1870
ispartof Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology, 2010-07, Vol.37 (7), p.692-699
issn 0305-1870
1440-1681
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733988684
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Altman-Bland
Bias
calibration
Clinical Laboratory Techniques - statistics & numerical data
confidence interval
Least-Squares Analysis
Linear Models
loss function
Monte Carlo Method
non-parametric methods
outlying values
Pharmacological Phenomena
Physiological Phenomena
title Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T10%3A33%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Linear%20regression%20analysis%20for%20comparing%20two%20measurers%20or%20methods%20of%20measurement:%20But%20which%20regression?&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20and%20experimental%20pharmacology%20&%20physiology&rft.au=Ludbrook,%20John&rft.date=2010-07&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=692&rft.epage=699&rft.pages=692-699&rft.issn=0305-1870&rft.eissn=1440-1681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733988684%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733988684&rft_id=info:pmid/20337658&rfr_iscdi=true