Book contents
- Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Dichotomous Tests
- Chapter 3 Multilevel and Continuous Tests
- Chapter 4 Critical Appraisal of Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
- Chapter 5 Reliability and Measurement Error
- Chapter 6 Risk Predictions
- Chapter 7 Multiple Tests and Multivariable Risk Models
- Chapter 8 Quantifying Treatment Effects Using Randomized Trials
- Chapter 9 Alternatives to Randomized Trials for Estimating Treatment Effects
- Chapter 10 Screening Tests
- Chapter 11 Understanding P-Values and Confidence Intervals
- Chapter 12 Challenges for Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Answers to Problems
- Index
- References
Chapter 5 - Reliability and Measurement Error
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 May 2020
Book contents
- Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Dichotomous Tests
- Chapter 3 Multilevel and Continuous Tests
- Chapter 4 Critical Appraisal of Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
- Chapter 5 Reliability and Measurement Error
- Chapter 6 Risk Predictions
- Chapter 7 Multiple Tests and Multivariable Risk Models
- Chapter 8 Quantifying Treatment Effects Using Randomized Trials
- Chapter 9 Alternatives to Randomized Trials for Estimating Treatment Effects
- Chapter 10 Screening Tests
- Chapter 11 Understanding P-Values and Confidence Intervals
- Chapter 12 Challenges for Evidence-Based Diagnosis
- Answers to Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
A test should give the same or similar results when administered repeatedly to the same individual within a time too short for real biological variation to take place. Results should be consistent whether the test is repeated by the same observer or instrument or by different observers or instruments. This desirable characteristic of a test is called “reliability” or “reproducibility.”
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidence-Based DiagnosisAn Introduction to Clinical Epidemiology, pp. 110 - 143Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Feinstein, AR, Cicchetti, DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543–49.Google Scholar
Yen, K, Karpas, A, Pinkerton, HJ, Gorelick, MH. Interexaminer reliability in physical examination of pediatric patients with abdominal pain. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(4):373–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplowitz, PB, Oberfield, SE. Reexamination of the age limit for defining when puberty is precocious in girls in the United States: implications for evaluation and treatment. Drug and Therapeutics and Executive Committees of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society. Pediatrics. 1999;104(4 Pt 1):936–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozen, S, Darcan, S. Effects of environmental endocrine disruptors on pubertal development. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2011;3(1):1–6.Google Scholar
Terry, MB, Goldberg, M, Schechter, S, et al. Comparison of clinical, maternal, and self pubertal assessments: implications for health studies. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1). https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/138/1/e20154571.Google Scholar
Siew, L, Hsiao, A, McCarthy, P, et al. Reliability of telemedicine in the assessment of seriously ill children. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20150712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, H, Foley, KG, Witherspoon, J, et al. Relative accuracy of emergency CT in adults with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1059):20150416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, MR, Reiley, DG, Green, SM. Interrater reliability of Glasgow Coma Scale scores in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(2):215–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, D, Haynes, R, Guyatt, G, Tugwell, P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991. 52 p.Google Scholar
Altman, DG. Practical statistics for medical research. 1st ed. London; New York: Chapman and Hall; 1991. xii, 611pp.Google Scholar
Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Measurement error and correlation coefficients. BMJ. 1996;313(7048):41–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lederle, FA, Wilson, SE, Johnson, GR, et al. Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21(6):945–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Bos, WJ, van Goudoever, J, van Montfrans, GA, van den Meiracker, AH, Wesseling, KH. Reconstruction of brachial artery pressure from noninvasive finger pressure measurements. Circulation. 1996;94(8):1870–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wren, TA, Liu, X, Pitukcheewanont, P, Gilsanz, V. Bone densitometry in pediatric populations: discrepancies in the diagnosis of osteoporosis by DXA and CT. J Pediatr. 2005;146(6):776–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krouwer, JS. Why Bland–Altman plots should use X, not (Y+X)/2 when X is a reference method. Stat Med. 2008;27(5):778–80.Google Scholar
Altman, DG, Bland, JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician. 1983;32:307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonoff, DC, Parkes, JL, Kovatchev, BP, et al. Investigation of the accuracy of 18 marketed blood glucose monitors. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(8):1681–8.Google Scholar
Hulley, SB, Cummings, SR, Browner, WS, Grady, DG, Newman, TB. Designing clinical research. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.Google Scholar
Farmer, ER, Gonin, R, Hanna, MP. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(6):528–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Yen, K, Karpas, A, Pinkerton, HJ, Gorelick, MH. Interexaminer reliability in physical examination of pediatric patients with abdominal pain. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(4):373–6.Google Scholar
Asha, SE, Cooke, A. Sensitivity and specificity of emergency physicians and trainees for identifying internally concealed drug packages on abdominal computed tomography scan: do lung windows improve accuracy? J Emerg Med. 2015;49(3):268–73.Google Scholar
Cruz, CO, Meshberg, EB, Shofer, FS, et al. Interrater reliability and accuracy of clinicians and trained research assistants performing prospective data collection in emergency department patients with potential acute coronary syndrome. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(1):1–7.Google Scholar
Turner, D, Otley, AR, Mack, D, et al. Development, validation, and evaluation of a pediatric ulcerative colitis activity index: a prospective multicenter study. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(2):423–32.Google Scholar
Lee, JJ, Colman, RJ, Mitchell, PD, et al. Agreement between patient- and physician-completed Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index scores. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011;52(6):708–13. https://journals.lww.com/jpgn/fulltext/2011/06000/Agreement_Between_Patient__and_Physician_completed.11.aspxCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinal, SH, Lawless, MR, Rainey, DY, et al. Clinician agreement on physical findings in child sexual abuse cases. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(5):497–501.Google ScholarPubMed
Sprouse, LR, Meier, GH, Lesar, CJ, et al. Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography: is there a difference? J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(3):466–71; discussion 71–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed