The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Regression analysis according to Passing and Bablok 30 showed that slopes between the BGMS and the GOD method ranged from 0.85 to 1.08 and from 0.81 to 1.01 when compared with the HK method.”
From Impact of Two Different Reference Measurement Procedures on Apparent System Accuracy of 18 CE-Marked Current-Generation Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems (2022) · cites this paper as [30]
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
Nonparametric Statistical Methods
(1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485954 · Cited by 6,118
Distribution-Free Statistical Tests
Bell, C. B., & Bradley, J. V. (1970) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1970.10488744 · Cited by 1,703
Distribution-Free Statistical Methods.
Hora, S. C., & Maritz, J. S. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288300 · Cited by 154
Cumulative Sum Tests: Theory and Practice
Burr, I. W., & de Bruyn, C. S. V. D. (1969) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1267036 · Cited by 138
Linear Free Energy Relationships as Tools for Investigating Chemical Similarity—Theory and Practice
Wold, S., & Sjöstróm, M. (1978) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-8831-3_1 · Cited by 19
Robuste Schätzung im Linearen Modell
Heiler, S. (1980) · Medizinische Informatik und Statistik · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-81511-9_4 · Cited by 3
Praktische Erfahrung mit R-robusten Verfahren bei klinischen Versuchen
Wolf, G. K. (1980) · Medizinische Informatik und Statistik · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-81511-9_7 · Cited by 2
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bablok, 1983, is obtained No Passing and ncw procedure for testing the cquality of mcasurements from two methods If we substitute the structural relationship in the de - finition of the S - we find y t - y t - - From yf ßx and djj we get o ß djj - - dij, Clin Chem Clin Biochem, 21
- Bablok, 1983, Clearly the new procedure takes into account the experimental reality of method comparisons s de - scribed in chapter No Passing and new procedure for testing the eq ality of measurements from two methods ϋ er ί - α CD α σ ρ - σ ο χ : i - ο ο : σα ε ο, Clin Chem Clin Biochem, 2, 3
- Bablok, 1983, and Biochern No Passing and new procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two methods It follows that : sup and max l cusum i hY V l, Clin Chern, 0
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding bland altman analysis
Giavarina, D. (2015) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2015.015 · Cited by 4,022
Bittner, T., Zetterberg, H., Teunissen, C. E., Ostlund, R. E., Militello, M., Andreasson, U., Hubeek, I., Gibson, D., Chu, D. C., Eichenlaub, U., et al. (2016) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.09.009 · Cited by 374
Farrell, C.-J. L., Martin, S., McWhinney, B. C., Straub, I. R., Williams, P. F., & Herrmann, M. (2012) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2011.172155 · Cited by 381
Palmqvist, S., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., Vestberg, S., Andreasson, U., Brooks, D. J., Owenius, R., Hägerström, D., Wollmer, P., Minthon, L., et al. (2014) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1358 · Cited by 368
Mueller, T., Gegenhuber, A., Poelz, W., & Haltmayer, M. (2003) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/49.6.976 · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- Passing, H., & Bablok, W.
- Venue
- cclm
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › 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
