Table 2 presents estimates and 95% distortion CR, B (y, z), as well as estimates of 95% agree limits for paired comparisons of systolic blood pressure for each pair comparison. Accurate measurement of variables of interest is essential in any health research or practice. However, it is generally accepted that measurements made simultaneously on the same object or sample with different instruments, methods or observers always give different empirical values. Therefore, the assessment of the quality of the measure is a central theme of the decision on the usefulness of an instrument, observer or observer [1]. Measurement and reproducibility are essential to determine this quality. Validity is the degree to which a measure measures what it purports to measure, and reproducibility is the degree to which a measure gives the same result in each test on a given object or sample [2]. Reproducibility is assessed without exception using an analysis of agreements within (intra) and between comparison studies of instruments, methods or observers. For a simple presentation, we refer to comparisons of instruments, methods or observers simply as comparisons of methods below. Dispersal diagrams of measurement differences relative to measured averages, with the 95% overlapping chord limits (higher subgradations) and histogram of measurement differences (lower sub-gradients) for paired comparisons of systolic blood pressure between the two observers (J-R) and between the J observer and the automated machine S (J-S). The 95% compliance limits appear in the outer lines, while the average estimate of distortion by intermediate lines is given in the upper sub-levels. Luiz RR, Szklo M: A statistical strategy for assessing the compliance of quantitative measures can usefully be reported.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 215-216. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.07.007. Bland JM, DG Altman: measure of agreement in comparative studies of methods. Med Res Stat Methods. 1999, 8: 135-160. 10.1191/09622809673819272. A representation of the subject coupled differences differences from the subject difference averages gives no reason to refute the hypothesis that the observations at the first level were independent (figure not represented). Implementation program Ex.2 (see supplementary file 2), bias estimates, B (y, z) and the 95% CR associated with the 95% agreement limit estimates for pairs of step numbers, measured by an observer (O) and step counters at the left hip (PLH), right hip (PRH) and rear (PB) were yielded and appear in Table 3. However, there are cases where more than two observers or measuring instruments are of particular interest and are evaluated simultaneously.