Cited by 347Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAnalytical Methods in PharmaceuticalsScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Comparison of methods: passing and Bablok regression

Open access
Bilic-Zulle, Lidija·2011·Biochemia Medica

Abstract

The com pa ri son of met ho ds expe ri me nt is im por ta nt pa rt in pro ce ss of ana lyti cal met ho ds and in stru men ts va li da tion.Pas si ng and Bab lok reg ression ana lysis is a sta tis ti cal pro ce du re that al lows va luab le es ti ma tion of ana lyti cal met ho ds ag ree me nt and pos sib le syste ma tic bias be tween them.It is ro bu st, no n-pa ra met ric, non sen si ti ve to dis tri bu tion of errors and da ta out lie rs.As sum ptio ns for pro per ap pli ca tion of Pas si ng and Bab lok regres sion are con ti nuous ly dis tri bu ted da ta and li near re la tion ship be tween da ta mea su red by two ana lyti cal met ho ds.Re sul ts are pre sen ted wi th scat ter diag ram and reg res sion li ne, and reg res sion equa tion whe re in ter ce pt rep re sen ts con sta nt and slo pe pro por tio nal mea su re me nt er ror.Confi den ce in ter va ls of 95% of in ter ce pt and slo pe explain if their va lue diff er from va lue ze ro (in ter ce pt) and va lue one (slo pe) on ly by chan ce, al lowi ng con clu sion of met hod ag ree me nt and cor rec tion ac tion if ne ces sa ry.Re si dual plot re vea led out lie rs and iden ti fy pos sib le no n-li nea ri ty.Fur ther mo re, cu mu la ti ve sum li nea ri ty te st is per for med to in ves ti ga te pos sib le sig ni fi ca nt de via tion from li nea ri ty be tween two sets of da ta.Non li near sam ples are not sui tab le for con clu di ng on met hod ag ree me nt.Key wor ds: com pa ri son of met ho ds; data ana lysis; Pas si ng and Bab lok reg res sion Re cei ved: Janua ry 6, 2011 Ac cep ted: Janua ry 16, 2011 Com pa ri son of met ho ds: Pas si ng and Bab lok reg res sion Li di ja Bi li ć-Zul le Cli ni cal De par tme nt of La bo ra to ry Diag nos ti cs, Cli ni cal Hos pi tal Cen tre and De par tme nt of Me di cal In for ma ti cs, Ri je ka Uni ver si ty School of Me di ci ne, Ri je ka, Croa tia Cor res pon di ng aut hor: li di ja.bilic-zulle@medri.hr

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 · 10.11613/bm.2011.010

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Passing-Bablok regression analyses allow estimating proportional and systematic differences between two measurements and calculating parameters that allow for correction.

    “Passing–Bablok regression analyses, in contrast to correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots, allow to estimate proportional and systematic differences between two measurements and to calculate parameters that allow for correction (19).”

    From A Method to Combine Neurofilament Light Measurements From Blood Serum and Plasma in Clinical and Population-Based Studies (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Conclusion (page not provided) says Passing–Bablok regression estimates constant and proportional bias and calculates parameters that allow correction. The Data analyses section says correlation coefficients cannot detect those differences, but it only lists Bland–Altman plots as another method; it does not support the claimed contrast with those plots. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Correlation describes a linear relationship between two sets of data but not their agreement; it does not quantify the proportional or systematic difference between two methods, so it does not allow deriving a formula for conversion between sampling methods.

    “Correlation describes linear relationship between two sets of data, but not their agreement; it does not quantify the proportional or systematic difference between two methods (19), so it does not allow to derive a formula for conversion between sampling methods.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Gas lje vic V. Met hod va li da tion and mea su re me nt un cer- tain ty. Bioc hem Med 2010;20:57-63.
  2. Im re S, Vla se L, Mun tean DL. Bioa na lyti cal met hod va li da- tion. Rev Rom Med Lab 2008;10:13-21.
  3. Udovičić M, Baždarić K, Bi li ć-Zul le L, Pet ro več ki M. What we need to know when cal cu la ti ng the coeffi cie nt of cor re la- tion? Bioc hem Med 2007;17:10-15.
  4. Cor nbleet PJ, Goc hman N. In cor re ct lea st-squa res reg res- sion coeffi cien ts in met ho d-com pa ri son stu dies. Clin Chem 1979;25:432-8.
  5. Bab lok W, Pas si ng H. Ap pli ca tion of sta tis ti cal pro ce du- res in ana lyti cal in stru me nt tes ti ng. J Au to mat Chem 1985;7:74-9.
  6. Lin net K. Eva lua tion of reg res sion pro ce du res for met ho ds com pa ri son stu dies. Clin Chem 1993;39:424-32.
  7. Pas si ng H, Bab lok W. A new bio met ri cal pro ce du re for tes- ti ng the equa li ty of mea su re men ts from two diff e re nt ana- lyti cal met ho ds. Ap pli ca tion of li near reg res sion pro ce du res for met hod com pa ri son stu dies in Cli ni cal Che mis try, Pa rt I. J Clin Chem Clin Bioc hem 1983;21:709-20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bilic-Zulle, L.
Venue
Biochemia Medica
Published
2011
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
49-52
ISSN
  • 1330-0962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1846-7482
OpenAlex
W2012310627
Cited by
347
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Biochemia Medica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
method comparison, measurement agreement, systematic bias, analytical method validation, nonparametric regression, linearity testing, cumulative sum test, outliers, measurement error, confidence intervals, residual plots, nonlinearity, outlier sensitivity
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Regression Analysis, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

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