Cited by 2,343Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading

Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G.·1995·The Lancet

Abstract

When comparing a new method of measurement with a standard method, one of the things we want to know is whether the difference between the measurements by the two methods is related to the magnitude of the measurement. A plot of the difference against the standard measurement is sometimes suggested, but this will always appear to show a relation between difference and magnitude when there is none. A plot of the difference against the average of the standard and new measurements is unlikely to mislead in this way. We show this theoretically and by a practical example.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91748-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A plot of the difference against a standard measurement will always appear to show a relation between difference and magnitude when there is none.

    “although this is controversial, because a plot of the difference against a “standard measurement” will always appear to show a relation between difference and magnitude when there is none (9).”

    From Understanding bland altman analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
St George's Hospital (GB)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-10
Volume
346
Issue
8982
Pages
1085-1087
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2037232743
Cited by
2,343
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 102 · 2016: 104 · 2015: 98 · 2014: 109 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 114
FWCI
35.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
method comparison, measurement agreement, new measurement method, scatter plots, measurement error, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Humans, Reference Standards, Reference Values, Statistics as Topic, Weights and Measures, Bias

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