Skip to main content

Testing Reproducibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Statistics Applied to Clinical Studies

Abstract

Poor reproducibility of diagnostic criteria is seldom acknowledged as a cause for low precision in clinical research. Also very few clinical reports communicate the levels of reproducibility of the diagnostic criteria they use. For example, of 11–13 original research papers published per issue in the ten last 2004 issues of the journal Circulation, none did, and of 5–6 original research papers published per issue in the ten last 2004 issues of the Journal of the American Association only 1 out of 12 did. These papers involved quality of life assessments, which are, notoriously, poorly reproducible. Instead, many reports used the averages of multiple measurements in order to improve the precision of the instruments used without further comment on reproducibility. For example, means of three blood pressure measurements, means of three cardiac cycles, average results of morphometric cell studies from two examiners, means of five random fields for cytogenetic studies were reported. Poor reproducibility of diagnostic criteria is, obviously, a recognized but rarely tested problem in clinical research. Evidence-based medicine is under pressure due to the poor reproducibility of clinical trials (Julius 2003; Cleophas and Cleophas 2003). As long as the possibility of poorly reproducible diagnostic criteria has not been systematically addressed, this very possibility cannot be excluded as a contributing cause for this. The current chapter reviews simple methods for routine assessment of reproducibility of diagnostic criteria/tests. These tests can answer questions like (1) do two techniques used to measure a particular variable, in otherwise identical circumstances, produce the same results, (2) does a single observer obtain the same results when he/she takes repeated measurements in identical circumstances, (3) do two observers using the same method of measurement obtain the same result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anonymous Calculating Cohen’s kappas. http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/manerror/html/kappa.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

  • Cleophas GM, Cleophas TJ (2003) Clinical trials in jeopardy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 41:51–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cleophas AF, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas TJ (2001) Reproducibility of polynomes of ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Perfusion 13:328–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbert-Bismut F, Messous D, Thibaut V, Myers RB, Piton A, Thabut D, Devers L, Hainque B, Mecardier A, Poynard T (2004) Intra-laboratory analytical variability of biochemical markers of fibrosis and activity and reference ranges in healthy blood donors. Clin Chem Lab Med 42:323–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Julius S (2003) The ALLHAT study: if you believe in evidence-based medicine. Stick to it. J Hypertens 21:453–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perloff JK (1991) The clinical recognition of congenital heart disease. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie A, Sabin C (2000) Assessing agreement. In: Medical statistics at a glance. Blackwell Science, London, p 93

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 2:420–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Statistical Software, Chicago, IL, www.SPSS.com. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cleophas, T.J., Zwinderman, A.H. (2012). Testing Reproducibility. In: Statistics Applied to Clinical Studies. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2863-9_45

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics