Review Article

Direct Use of Clinical Tolerance Limits for Assessing the Degree of Agreement between Two Methods of Measuring Blood Pressure

Authors: Abhaya Indrayan, PhD

Abstract

A large number of new methods of measuring blood pressure (BP) have recently emerged with advances in technology. Different methods of measuring BP generally provide varying readings compared with one another. Clinicians must decide how to respond to these variations and how to assess the degree of agreement. Clinical agreement between two quantitative measurements on a group of subjects is generally assessed with the Bland-Altman method. This method requires a comparison of Bland-Altman limits with the prespecified clinical tolerance limits. This review describes an alternative simple and robust method that directly uses clinical tolerance limits for assessing agreement without calculating Bland-Altman limits. The many advantages of this method are illustrated with the help of real-life examples of BP measurements.

 
Posted in: Hypertension17

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Peeters LEJ, van Oortmerssen JAE, Derks LH, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure measurement with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement. Blood Press 2022;31:9–18.
 
2. Polonia J, Baptista C, Silva J, et al. Unattended versus two attended, ambulatory and central blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes. Blood Press 2019;28:99–106.
 
3. Drake MJ, Hill JS. Observational study comparing non-invasive blood pressure measurement at the arm and ankle during caesarean section. Anaesthesia 2013;68:461–466.
 
4. Lorenzen U, Pohlmann M, Hansen J, et al. Perioperative non-invasive versus semi-invasive cardiac index monitoring in patients with bariatric surgery—a prospective observational study. BMC Anesthesiol 2020;20:196.
 
5. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.
 
6. Francq BG, Govaerts B. How to regress and predict in Bland-Altman plot? Review and contribution based on tolerance intervals and correlated-errorsin-variables models. Stat Med 2016;35:2328–2358.
 
7. Indrayan A. A simple and robust alternative to Bland-Altman method of assessing clinical agreement. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=4189799 Published August 14, 2022. Accessed January 31, 2023.
 
8. Taffé P. When can the Bland & Altman limits of agreement method be used and when it should not be used. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;37:176–181.
 
9. Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Ismail NA. Testing the agreement of medical instruments: overestimation of bias in the Bland-Altman analysis. Prev Med 2013; 57(suppl):S80–S82.
 
10. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135–160.
 
11. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998;17:857–872.
 
12. Zeng WW, Chan SW, Tomlinson B. Patient preferences for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring devices: wrist-type or arm-type? PLoS One. 2021;16: e0255871.