Bland and Altman indicate that two measurement methods developed to measure the same parameter (or property) should have a good correlation when a group of samples is selected so that the property to be determined varies considerably. Therefore, a high correlation for two methods of measuring the same property could in itself be only a sign that a widely used sample has been chosen. A high correlation does not necessarily mean that there is a good agreement between the two methods. Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods to assess the consistency between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307-10. Shieh, G. The adequacy of Bland-Altman`s approximate confidence intervals for The Limits of the Agreement. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 45 (2018).

doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0505-y In particular, Bland and Altman [1, 2] proposed the 95% agreement to assess the differences between the measures by two methods. The Bland-Altman agreement limits at 95% are the 2.5 percentile and 97.5 percentiles for the distribution of the difference between the measures of the species. To reflect the uncertainty resulting from a sampling error, approximate interval formulas were presented for estimating the two individual percentiles. The large number of citations showed that Bland-Altman`s analysis became the most important technique for assessing the consistency between two methods of clinical measurement. But recent work by Carkeet [19] and Carkeet and Goh [20] has provided detailed discussions for a precise confidence interval on the approximate method envisaged at Bland and Altman [1, 2], particularly when sample sizes are small. Other considerations and verifications of the measurement agreement in method comparison studies are available in Barnhart, Haber and Lin [21], Choudhary and Nagaraja [22] and Lin et al. [23]. Carkeet A. Exact Parametric Confidence Intervals for Bland-Altman Compliance Limits. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92:e71-80. On the other hand, in establishing confidence intervals between the boundaries of agreements or percentiles, Bland and Altman [2] argued that var[S] ≐ 2/(2) and Var [2) and Var [2) B] ≐ b-2/N, the B-1-for example _p.

With the approach, they proposed simplified speed Although the practical implementation of the exact interval method in Carkeet [19] is well illustrated, the explanation of the differences between the exact and approximate methods focused primarily on the relative sizes and symmetrical/asymmetrical limits of the resulting confidence limits. On the other hand, Bland-Altman`s 95% agreement limits are generally considered to be related to the measurement of compliance in comparing methods. Carkeet [19] and Carkeet and Goh [20] therefore focused on comparing approximate confidence intervals for the upper and lower limits of torque chords and tolerance intervals on both sides for normal distribution. Therefore, the particular benefit of precise interval procedures and the ability to limit approximate confidence intervals for each upper and lower limit of the Carkeet [19] and De Carkeet and Goh [20] agreement were not fully discussed. It is practical to conduct a detailed assessment of the accuracy and discrepancy between exact and approximate interval methods for an individual match limit in a multitude of model configurations.