Cited by 5,220Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement

Bland, J. Martin, Altman, Douglas G.·2010·International Journal of Nursing Studies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When neither method is a reference, the mean of the two measurements is the best estimate of the true value.

    “But since we do not know the true value, the mean of the two measurements is the best estimate we have (7).”

    From Understanding bland altman analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [7]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
St George's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Bland, J. Martin
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
47
Issue
8
Pages
931-936
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003169355
Cited by
5,220
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 185 · 2024: 246 · 2023: 323 · 2022: 330 · 2021: 384 · 2020: 390 · 2019: 326 · 2018: 242 · 2017: 256 · 2016: 186 · 2015: 203 · 2014: 167 · 2013: 172 · 2012: 183
FWCI
186.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
agreement between measurement methods, method comparison, correlation coefficient limitations, repeatability, clinical measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review