Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 54: 612, 2008; 10.1373/clinchem.2007.094060
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Westgard, J. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Westgard, J. O.
Related Collections
Right arrow Citation Classics
(Clinical Chemistry. 2008;54:612.)
© 2008 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Citation Classics

Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies

James O. Westgard1

1 University of Wisconsin CLS Program, Madison, WI.

Address correspondence to this author at: James O. Westgard, University of Wisconsin CLS Program, 1300 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail james@westgard.com.

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Feature Article: Westgard JO, Hunt MR. Use and interpretation of common statistical tests in method comparison studies. Clin Chem 1973;19:49–57.1

Marian Hunt and I published this paper to improve the understanding and application of commonly used statistics in method validation studies. We specifically wanted to clarify the misuse of the correlation coefficient and t-test statistics, and to point out important factors that affected the reliability of least squares statistics. This paper also provided some direction in making decisions on the acceptability of a method by using statistics to estimate the sizes of analytical errors. A subsequent paper (1) provided criteria for comparing those estimates of errors with quality standards that defined . . . [Full Text of this Article]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.