Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32532218›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners.

Richard A Parker, Charles Scott, Vanda Inácio, Nathaniel T Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Richard A ParkerEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Charles ScottDiabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vanda InácioSchool of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nathaniel T StevensDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. nstevens@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6149-5797

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/03Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/826Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2019-04212
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies of agreement examine the distance between readings made by different devices or observers measuring the same quantity. If the values generated by each device are close together most of the time then we conclude that the devices agree. Several different agreement methods have been described in the literature, in the linear mixed modelling framework, for use when there are time-matched repeated measurements within subjects.

methodsWe provide a tutorial to help guide practitioners when choosing among different methods of assessing agreement based on a linear mixed model assumption. We illustrate the use of five methods in a head-to-head comparison using real data from a study involving Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients and matched repeated respiratory rate observations. The methods used were the concordance correlation coefficient, limits of agreement, total deviation index, coverage probability, and coefficient of individual agreement.

resultsThe five methods generated similar conclusions about the agreement between devices in the COPD example; however, some methods emphasized different aspects of the between-device comparison, and the interpretation was clearer for some methods compared to others.

conclusionsFive different methods used to assess agreement have been compared in the same setting to facilitate understanding and encourage the use of multiple agreement methods in practice. Although there are similarities between the methods, each method has its own strengths and weaknesses which are important for researchers to be aware of. We suggest that researchers consider using the coverage probability method alongside a graphical display of the raw data in method comparison studies. In the case of disagreement between devices, it is important to look beyond the overall summary agreement indices and consider the underlying causes. Summarising the data graphically and examining model parameters can both help with this.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveHumansLinear ModelsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignAgreementConcordance correlation coefficientLimits of agreementMethod comparison studiesRepeated measures

Identifiers

PMID32532218
PMCPMC7291585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.