I. Using the Bland–Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Bland-Altman comparisons showed that more than 91.8% of measurements were within the limits of agreement for LLR vs Navopt across all CPAK parameters.
“Bland–Altman comparisons reported good agreement for LLR vs. Navlit and Navopt, with > 95% and > 91.8% of measurements within the limits of agreement across all CPAK parameters, respectively.”
From Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Bland-Altman comparisons showed that more than 95% of measurements were within the limits of agreement for LLR vs Navlit across all CPAK parameters.
“Bland–Altman comparisons reported good agreement for LLR vs. Navlit and Navopt, with > 95% and > 91.8% of measurements within the limits of agreement across all CPAK parameters, respectively.”
From Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs (2024) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms
Shaffer, F., & Ginsberg, J. P. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258 · Cited by 7,185 · see citing works
Analysis of a Pulse Rate Variability Measurement Using a Smartphone Camera
Bánhalmi, A., Borbás, J., Fidrich, M., Bilicki, V., Gingl, Z., & Rudas, L. (2018) · Journal of Healthcare Engineering · doi:10.1155/2018/4038034 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Ma, D., Holmes, H. E., Cardoso, M. J., Modat, M., Harrison, I. F., Powell, N. M., O’Callaghan, J. M., Ismail, O., Johnson, R. A., O’Neill, M. J., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00011 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
van Zyl, A., White, Z., Ferreira, J., & Wenhold, F. A. M. (2019) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu11092021 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Edelstein, A. I., Orsi, A. D., Plaskos, C., Coffey, S., & Suleiman, L. I. (2024) · Arthroplasty · doi:10.1186/s42836-024-00231-9 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between LLR observers, LLR mean and Nav lit , and LLR mean and Nav opt , and the percentage of cases within the expected 95% limits of agreement (LOA, i.e., within ± 1.96 SD) were calculated for all CPAK parameters [31, 32].”
MethodInfluential
- Authors
- Myles, P. S., & Cui, J.
- Affiliations
- The Alfred Hospital (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Myles, P.S.
- ORCID
- Myles, P.S.
- Venue
- British Journal of Anaesthesia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 309-311
- ISSN
- 0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117359150
- Cited by
- 620
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Bland-Altman analysis, measurement agreement, repeated measures, method comparison, measurement error, inter-method agreement
- MeSH terms
- Anesthesiology, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Oxygen Consumption, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical
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
