Reporting standards for Bland–Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice

Abstract

Background and objectives To carry out a cross-sectional survey of the medical literature on laboratory research papers published later than 2012 and available in the common search engines (PubMed, Google Scholar) on the quality of statistical reporting of method comparison studies using Bland–Altman (B-A) analysis. Methods Fifty clinical studies were identified which had undertaken method comparison of laboratory analytes using B-A. The reporting of B-A was evaluated using a predesigned checklist with following six items: (1) correct representation of x-axis on B-A plot, (2) representation and correct definition of limits of agreement (LOA), (3) reporting of confidence interval (CI) of LOA, (4) comparison of LOA with a priori defined clinical criteria, (5) evaluation of the pattern of the relationship between difference ( y-axis) and average ( x-axis) and (6) measures of repeatability. Results and interpretation The x-axis and LOA were presented correctly in 94%, comparison with a priori clinical criteria in 74%, CI reporting in 6%, evaluation of pattern in 28% and repeatability assessment in 38% of studies. Conclusions There is incomplete reporting of B-A in published clinical studies. Despite its simplicity, B-A appears not to be completely understood by researchers, reviewers and editors of journals. There appear to be differences in the reporting of B-A between laboratory medicine journals and other clinical journals. A uniform reporting of B-A method will enhance the generalizability of results.