Talk:Bland–Altman plot
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
It would be good if some could explain how to interpret the graph. For example what is considered as a good agreement. Thanks 194.83.140.121 (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Range of application
The controversy should be better explained.
The title of the original article clearly indicates "two clinical measurements". The authors later claim that this method can also apply to comparison with a gold measure, and that's true. However that not indicates that it is the most appropriate. This method is not directly intended to compare a new method to a gold one, but gives a statistical index of the similarity-dissimilarity that can help to judge if an observed difference between the methods is possibly obtained by chance. By application, this method is then clearly appropriate or directed to clinician who must know how much different from the norm a value should be to indicate with uncertaincy a pathology.
Special methods based on regression are generally preferred when comparing to gold standard, because they allow to clearly and visually distinguish: - the relationship between new and gold method. - the dispersion of the data around the relationship (the error of the new method compare to the gold measure). - the evolution of this dispersion into the the range of value when error are non-uniform (a very common case in biological data). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.49.68.223 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)