D. Stockl et al., VALIDITY OF LINEAR-REGRESSION IN METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES - IS IT LIMITED BY THE STATISTICAL-MODEL OR THE QUALITY OF THE ANALYTICAL INPUT DATA, Clinical chemistry, 44(11), 1998, pp. 2340-2346
We compared the application of ordinary linear regression, Deming regr
ession, standardized principal component analysis, and Passing-Bablok
regression to real-life method comparison studies to investigate wheth
er the statistical model of regression or the analytical input data ha
ve more influence on the validity of the regression estimates. We took
measurements of serum potassium as an example for comparisons that co
ver a narrow data range and measurements of serum estradiol-17 beta as
an example for comparisons that cover a wide data range. We demonstra
te that, in practice, it is not the statistical model but the quality
of the analytical input data that is crucial for interpretation of met
hod comparison studies. We show the usefulness of ordinary linear regr
ession, in particular, because it gives a better estimate of the stand
ard deviation of the residuals than the other procedures. The latter i
s important for distinguishing whether the observed spread across the
regression line is caused by the analytical imprecision alone or wheth
er sample-related effects also contribute. We further demonstrate the
usefulness of linear correlation analysis as a first screening test fo
r the validity of linear regression data. When ordinary linear regress
ion (in combination with correlation analysis) gives poor estimates, w
e recommend investigating the analytical reason for the poor performan
ce instead of assuming that other linear regression procedures add sub
stantial value to the interpretation of the study. This investigation
should address whether (a) the x and y data are linearly related; (b)
the total analytical imprecision (s(a,tot)) is responsible for the poo
r correlation; (c) sample-related effects are present (standard deviat
ion of the residuals much greater than s(a,tot)); (d) the samples are
adequately distributed over the investigated range; and (c) the number
of samples used for the comparison is adequate.