The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison Studies
Abstract
We have studied the usefulness of common statistical tests as applied to method comparison studies. We simulated different types of errors in test sets of data to determine the sensitivity of different statistical parameters. Least-squares parameters (slope of least-squares line, its y intercept, and the standard error of estimate in the y direction) provide specific estimates of proportional, constant, and random errors, but comparison data must be presented graphically to detect limitations caused by nonlinearity and errant points. t-test parameters ( bias, standard deviation of difference) provide estimates of constant and random errors, but only when proportional error is absent. Least-squares analysis can estimate proportional error and should be considered a prerequisite to t-test analysis. The correlation coefficient (r) is sensitive only to random error, but is not easily interpreted. Values for r, t, and F are not useful in making decisions on the acceptability of performance. These decisions should be judgments on the errors that are tolerable. Statistical tests can be applied in a manner that provides specific estimates of these errors
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies
Westgard, J. O. (2008) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060 · Cited by 310
Self-citationBaker, L. B., Ungaro, C. T., Sopeña, B. C., Nuccio, R. P., Reimel, A. J., Carter, J. M., Stofan, J. R., & Barnes, K. A. (2018) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00867.2017 · Cited by 116
Validation of equations used to predict plasma osmolality in a healthy adult cohort
Heavens, K. R., Kenefick, R. W., Caruso, E. M., Spitz, M. G., & Cheuvront, S. N. (2014) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.091009 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Westgard, J. O., & Hunt, M. R.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1973-01-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-57
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W4246731685
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/19.1.49
- The paper
- Westgard, J. O., & Hunt, M. R. (1973). Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison Studies. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/19.1.49
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.