Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Research article

A multivariate hierarchical Bayesian approach to measuring agreement in repeated measurement method comparison studies

Author: Philip J Schluter

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Assessing agreement in method comparison studies depends on two fundamentally important components; validity (the between method agreement) and reproducibility (the within method agreement). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement technique is one of the favoured approaches in medical literature for assessing between method validity. However, few researchers have adopted this approach for the assessment of both validity and reproducibility. This may be partly due to a lack of a flexible, easily implemented and readily available statistical machinery to analyse repeated measurement method comparison data.

Methods

Adopting the Bland-Altman framework, but using Bayesian methods, we present this statistical machinery. Two multivariate hierarchical Bayesian models are advocated, one which assumes that the underlying values for subjects remain static (exchangeable replicates) and one which assumes that the underlying values can change between repeated measurements (non-exchangeable replicates).

Results

We illustrate the salient advantages of these models using two separate datasets that have been previously analysed and presented; (i) assuming static underlying values analysed using both multivariate hierarchical Bayesian models, and (ii) assuming each subject's underlying value is continually changing quantity and analysed using the non-exchangeable replicate multivariate hierarchical Bayesian model.

Conclusion

These easily implemented models allow for full parameter uncertainty, simultaneous method comparison, handle unbalanced or missing data, and provide estimates and credible regions for all the parameters of interest. Computer code for the analyses in also presented, provided in the freely available and currently cost free software package WinBUGS.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM: Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 1137-1141. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.012.CrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM: Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 1137-1141. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.08.012.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern Epidemiology. 1998, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 2 Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern Epidemiology. 1998, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 2
3.
go back to reference Luiz RR, Szklo M: More than one statistical strategy to assess agreement of quantitative measurements may usefully be reported. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 215-216. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.07.007.CrossRefPubMed Luiz RR, Szklo M: More than one statistical strategy to assess agreement of quantitative measurements may usefully be reported. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 215-216. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.07.007.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG: Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 22: 85-93. 10.1002/uog.122.CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG: Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 22: 85-93. 10.1002/uog.122.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307-310.CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307-310.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999, 8: 135-160. 10.1191/096228099673819272.CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999, 8: 135-160. 10.1191/096228099673819272.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Ludbrook J: Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of measurement: a critical review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002, 29: 527-536. 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03686.x.CrossRefPubMed Ludbrook J: Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of measurement: a critical review. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002, 29: 527-536. 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03686.x.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Carstensen B: Comparing and predicting between several methods of measurement. Biostatistics. 2004, 5: 399-413. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxg043.CrossRefPubMed Carstensen B: Comparing and predicting between several methods of measurement. Biostatistics. 2004, 5: 399-413. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxg043.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Luiz RR, Costa AJ, Kale PL, Werneck GL: Assessment of agreement of a quantitative variable: a new graphical approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 963-967. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00164-1.CrossRefPubMed Luiz RR, Costa AJ, Kale PL, Werneck GL: Assessment of agreement of a quantitative variable: a new graphical approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 963-967. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00164-1.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference White SA, Broek van den NR: Methods for assessing reliability and validity for a measurement tool: a case study and critique using the WHO haemoglobin colour scale. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 1603-1619. 10.1002/sim.1804.CrossRefPubMed White SA, Broek van den NR: Methods for assessing reliability and validity for a measurement tool: a case study and critique using the WHO haemoglobin colour scale. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 1603-1619. 10.1002/sim.1804.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Congdon P: Bayesian Statistical Modelling. 2002, Chichester: Wiley Congdon P: Bayesian Statistical Modelling. 2002, Chichester: Wiley
13.
go back to reference Berger JO: Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. 1985, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2CrossRef Berger JO: Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. 1985, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB: Bayesian Data Analysis. 1997, London: Chapman & Hall Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB: Bayesian Data Analysis. 1997, London: Chapman & Hall
15.
go back to reference Oliver M, Schofield GM, Kolt GS, Schluter PJ: Pedometer accuracy in physical activity assessment of preschool children. J Sci Med Sport. 2007, 10: 303-310. 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.07.004.CrossRefPubMed Oliver M, Schofield GM, Kolt GS, Schluter PJ: Pedometer accuracy in physical activity assessment of preschool children. J Sci Med Sport. 2007, 10: 303-310. 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.07.004.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D: WinBUGS – a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000, 10: 325-337. 10.1023/A:1008929526011.CrossRef Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D: WinBUGS – a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000, 10: 325-337. 10.1023/A:1008929526011.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Stata Corporation: Intercooled Stata 8.0 for Windows. 2003, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 8.0 Stata Corporation: Intercooled Stata 8.0 for Windows. 2003, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 8.0
18.
go back to reference Brooks SP, Gelman A: Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat. 1998, 7: 434-455. 10.2307/1390675. Brooks SP, Gelman A: Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat. 1998, 7: 434-455. 10.2307/1390675.
19.
go back to reference Lu G, Ades AE: Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 3105-3124. 10.1002/sim.1875.CrossRefPubMed Lu G, Ades AE: Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004, 23: 3105-3124. 10.1002/sim.1875.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Woolrich MW, Behrens TE, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM: Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage. 2004, 21: 1732-1747. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.023.CrossRefPubMed Woolrich MW, Behrens TE, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM: Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage. 2004, 21: 1732-1747. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.023.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Goldstein H, Browne W, Rasbash J: Multilevel modelling of medical data. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 3291-3315. 10.1002/sim.1264.CrossRefPubMed Goldstein H, Browne W, Rasbash J: Multilevel modelling of medical data. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 3291-3315. 10.1002/sim.1264.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A multivariate hierarchical Bayesian approach to measuring agreement in repeated measurement method comparison studies
Author
Philip J Schluter
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2009 Go to the issue