The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures.
Open accessAbstract
The lack of consistency of much medical judgment and decision making has long been appreciated.This is now recognised as an important source of error, and attempts to quantify it have been enhanced by an increasingly sophisticated statistical toolbox at the disposal of the clinical investigator.Variability in measurement and classification may arise from two sources, (a) a lack of consistency within an individual observer (or measuring process) when carrying out successive recordings, and (b) a lack of consistency between observers.Assessing lack of consistency between observers is important for two reasons.Firstly, in any single study using more than one observer an assessment of the variation between them is essential in interpreting the data derived.Secondly, the observer variation seen in one study may be extrapolated to other studies of the same technique but using different observers-that is, the origin of the variation may be inherent in the method itself.This review attempts to summarise in simple terms the statistical techniques available to quantify the variation within and between observers.TABLE II-Suggested interpretation ofagreement for different values ofx statistic Strength of x Statistic agreement <0 20 Poor 0-21-0 40 Fair 0-41-0 60 Moderate 0-61-0 80
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
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
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034
Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic
MACLURE, M., & WILLETT, W. C. (1987) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/126.2.161 · Cited by 808
Cited by
The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements
Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/85.3.257 · Cited by 4,093
WILSON, J. T. L., PETTIGREW, L. E. L., & TEASDALE, G. M. (1998) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.1998.15.573 · Cited by 2,386
van Melle, J. P., de Jonge, P., Spijkerman, T. A., Tijssen, J. G. P., Ormel, J., van Veldhuisen, D. J., van den Brink, R. H. S., & van den Berg, M. P. (2004) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000146294.82810.9c · Cited by 1,034
Anxiety and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease
Roest, A. M., Martens, E. J., de Jonge, P., & Denollet, J. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.034 · Cited by 865
Wilson, J. T. L., Hareendran, A., Grant, M., Baird, T., Schulz, U. G. R., Muir, K. W., & Bone, I. (2002) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000027437.22450.bd · Cited by 855
Metadata
- Authors
- Brennan, P., & Silman, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-06-06
- Volume
- 304
- Issue
- 6840
- Pages
- 1491-1494
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2018570802
- Cited by
- 985
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 44.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491
- The paper
- Brennan, P., & Silman, A. (1992). Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491
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.