Testing Reproducibility

Ton J. Cleophas, Aeilko H. Zwinderman and Toine F. Cleophas
Additional contact information
Ton J. Cleophas: European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine Lyon
Aeilko H. Zwinderman: Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Department Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Toine F. Cleophas: Technical University

Chapter Chapter 27 in Statistics Applied to Clinical Trials, 2006, pp 307-317 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract Poor reproducibility of diagnostic criteria is seldom acknowledged as a cause for low precision in clinical research. Yet, 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 10 last 2004 issues of the journal Circulation, none did, and of 5 – 6 original research papers published per issue in the 10 last 2004 issues of the Journal of the American Association only one 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 precision 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 5 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.1,2 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 paper 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.

Keywords: Congenital Heart Disease; Ambulatory Blood Pressure; Poor Reproducibility; Identical Circumstance; Original Research Paper (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-1-4020-4650-6_27

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9781402046506

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4650-6_27

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().