Cited by 436Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies

Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology

Open access
McAlinden, Colm, Khadka, Jyoti, Pesudovs, Konrad·2011·Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

Abstract

Citation information : McAlinden C, Khadka J & Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011, 31 , 330–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‐1313.2011.00851.x The ever‐expanding choice of ocular metrology and imaging equipment has driven research into the validity of their measurements. Consequently, studies of the agreement between two instruments or clinical tests have proliferated in the ophthalmic literature. It is important that researchers apply the appropriate statistical tests in agreement studies. Correlation coefficients are hazardous and should be avoided. The ‘limits of agreement’ method originally proposed by Altman and Bland in 1983 is the statistical procedure of choice. Its step‐by‐step use and practical considerations in relation to optometry and ophthalmology are detailed in addition to sample size considerations and statistical approaches to precision (repeatability or reproducibility) estimates.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00851.x

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J., & Pesudovs, K.
Affiliations
Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
McAlinden, Colm
Venue
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
Published
2011-05-26
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
330-338
ISSN
  • 0275-5408 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-1313
OpenAlex
W2126376404
Cited by
436
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 22
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Keywords
repeatability, reproducibility, limits of agreement, correlation coefficient, ophthalmic instruments, sample size, measurement precision, optometry
MeSH terms
Humans, Ophthalmology, Optometry, Vision, Ocular, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research

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