Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 985

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 access
Brennan, P., Silman, A.·1992·BMJ

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 985

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.