The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies
Abstract
Feature Article: Westgard JO, Hunt MR. Use and interpretation of common statistical tests in method comparison studies. Clin Chem 1973;19:49–57.1 Marian Hunt and I published this paper to improve the understanding and application of commonly used statistics in method validation studies. We specifically wanted to clarify the misuse of the correlation coefficient and t-test statistics, and to point out important factors that affected the reliability of least squares statistics. This paper also provided some direction in making decisions on the acceptability of a method by using statistics to estimate the sizes of analytical errors. A subsequent paper (1) provided criteria for comparing those estimates of errors with quality standards that defined the amount of allowable error. This paper was written at a time when I was very involved in the evaluation of new automated analytic systems. At that time little guidance was available as to how to analyze and interpret the data from method evaluation experiments. Decisions on acceptability of new methods seldom provided any rational explanation as to why a method was judged acceptable or not. The correlation coefficient was the statistic most often being used to justify decisions on acceptability, followed by the t-test, in which the decision was based on whether or not the t-value indicated a statistically significant difference (i.e., calculated t-value greater than the critical t-value) between methods. Neither of these approaches took into account the actual quality required for the application of laboratory tests.
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
A multi-rule Shewhart chart for quality control in clinical chemistry.
Westgard, J. O., Barry, P. L., Hunt, M. R., & Groth, T. (1981) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/27.3.493 · Cited by 831
Self-citationÜber die Eigenschaften eines neuen Chromogens für die Blutzuckerbestimmung nach der GOD/POD-Methode
Werner, W., Rey, H. G., & Wielinger, H. (1970) · Fresenius' Zeitschrift für analytische Chemie · doi:10.1007/bf00546391 · Cited by 643
Maddox, G. L. (1964) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/4.2_part_1.80 · Cited by 571
Psychological statistics, 2nd ed.
McNemar, Q. (1955) · Cited by 559
Influence of Statistical Method Used on the Resulting Estimate of Normal Range
Reed, A. H., Henry, R. J., & Mason, W. B. (1971) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/17.4.275 · Cited by 531
Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison Studies
Westgard, J. O., & Hunt, M. R. (1973) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/19.1.49 · Cited by 264
Self-citationCriteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation
Westgard, J. O., Carey, R. N., & Wold, S. (1974) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/20.7.825 · Cited by 236
Self-citationWilliams, G. Z., Young, D. S., Stein, M. R., & Cotlove, E. (1970) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/16.12.1016 · Cited by 217
Medical Significance of Laboratory Results
Barnett, R. N. (1968) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/50.6.671 · Cited by 156
Westgard, J. O., Groth, T., Aronsson, T., Falk, H., & de Verdier, C. H. (1977) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1093/clinchem/23.10.1857 · Cited by 151
Self-citation
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
Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1983) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2987937 · Cited by 4,300
Validation of fluorescent-labeled microspheres for measurement of regional organ perfusion
Glenny, R. W., Bernard, S., & Brinkley, M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1993.74.5.2585 · Cited by 365
Baker, 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.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-03-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 612-612
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W1991656581
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 6.03
- 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/10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060
- The paper
- Westgard, J. O. (2008). Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060
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.