Cited by 1,513Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationReliability and Agreement in Measurement

A New Biometrical Procedure for Testing the Equality of Measurements from Two Different Analytical Methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in Clinical Chemistry, Part I

Open access
Passing, H., Bablok, W.·1983·cclm

Abstract

Procedures for the statistical evaluation of method comparisons and instrument tests often have a requirement for distributional properties of the experimental data, but this requirement is frequently not met. In our paper we propose a new linear regression procedure with no special assumptions regarding the distribution of the samples and the measurement errors. The result does not depend on the assignment of the methods (instruments) to X and Y. After testing a linear relationship between X and Y confidence limits are given for the slope beta and the intercept alpha; they are used to determine whether there is only a chance difference between beta and 1 and between alpha and 0. The mathematical background is amplified separately in an appendix.

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 · 10.1515/cclm.1983.21.11.709

Cites

7 of 7 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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Michotte, Y. (1978) Evaluation of precision and accuracy - comparison of two procedures, In: Evaluation and optimiza- tion of laboratory methods and analytical procedures (Mas- sart, D. L., Dijkstra, A. & Kaufmann, L., eds.), Eisevier, Am- sterdam, Oxford, New York.
  2. Theil, H. (1950) Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. v. Wetensch, AS 3, Part I 386-392, part II 521-525, part III 1397-1412.
  3. Hollander, M. & Wolfe, D. A. (1973) Nonparametric Statist- ical Methods, J. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Passing, H., & Bablok, W.
Venue
cclm
Published
1983
Volume
21
Issue
11
Pages
709-720
ISSN
  • 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-4331
OpenAlex
W2020210187
Cited by
1,513
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 48
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) (submittedVersion)
  • edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
method comparison, linear regression, measurement error, distribution-free statistics, clinical chemistry instrumentation
MeSH terms
Biometry, Chemistry, Clinical, Humans, Quality Control, Regression Analysis

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