Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Studies 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parker, Richard A., Scott, Charles, Inácio, Vanda, Stevens, Nathaniel T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32532218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01022-x
_version_ 1783545936290512896
author Parker, Richard A.
Scott, Charles
Inácio, Vanda
Stevens, Nathaniel T.
author_facet Parker, Richard A.
Scott, Charles
Inácio, Vanda
Stevens, Nathaniel T.
author_sort Parker, Richard A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Five 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7291585
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72915852020-06-12 Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners Parker, Richard A. Scott, Charles Inácio, Vanda Stevens, Nathaniel T. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Studies 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Five 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. BioMed Central 2020-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7291585/ /pubmed/32532218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01022-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Parker, Richard A.
Scott, Charles
Inácio, Vanda
Stevens, Nathaniel T.
Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title_full Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title_fullStr Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title_full_unstemmed Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title_short Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
title_sort using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32532218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01022-x
work_keys_str_mv AT parkerricharda usingmultipleagreementmethodsforcontinuousrepeatedmeasuresdataatutorialforpractitioners
AT scottcharles usingmultipleagreementmethodsforcontinuousrepeatedmeasuresdataatutorialforpractitioners
AT inaciovanda usingmultipleagreementmethodsforcontinuousrepeatedmeasuresdataatutorialforpractitioners
AT stevensnathanielt usingmultipleagreementmethodsforcontinuousrepeatedmeasuresdataatutorialforpractitioners