Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 2, 2017

New perspectives on existing data in comparative measurements: a simple extension of the regression analysis

  • Jürgen Durner EMAIL logo and Michael Spannagl

Corresponding author: Jürgen Durner, MD, PhD, Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry, Peridontology and Pedodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336 Munich, Germany; Labor Staber und Colleagues, Nürnberg, Germany; and INSTAND e.V., Society for the Promotion of Quality Management in Medical Laboratories e.V., Düsseldorf, Germany, Phone: +49-89-4400-58233, Fax: +49-89-4400-59302

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


1. Bablok W, Passing H, Bender R, Schneider B. A general regression procedure for method transformation. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part iii. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1988;26:783–90.10.1515/cclm.1988.26.11.783Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Passing H, Bablok. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part i. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709–20.Search in Google Scholar

3. Passing H, Bablok W. Comparison of several regression procedures for method comparison studies and determination of sample sizes. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part ii. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1984;22:431–45.10.1515/cclm.1984.22.6.431Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Haeckel R, Wosniok W, Klauke R. Comparison of ordinary linear regression, orthogonal regression, standardized principal component analysis, deming and passing-bablok approach for method validation in laboratory medicine. J Lab Med 2013;37:147–63.10.1515/labmed-2013-0003Search in Google Scholar

5. CLSI, Ep09-a3: measurement procedure comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; approved guideline, 3rd ed. Wayne, USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

6. DIN-58964:2015-09. Quality assurance of poct results – assessment criteria for comparison mesurement and implementation. Berlin: Beuth-Verlag, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

7. Excel file permissible uncertainty. Available at: Accessed: 25 March 2016.Search in Google Scholar

8. Matar G, Poggi B, Meley R, Bon C, Chardon L, Chikh K, et al. Uncertainty in measurement for 43 biochemistry, immunoassay, and hemostasis routine analytes evaluated by a method using only external quality assessment data. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1725–36.10.1515/cclm-2014-0942Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Michel R. Measuring, estimating, and deciding under uncertainty. Appl Radiat Isot 2016;109:6–11.10.1016/j.apradiso.2015.12.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Pincus M. Management of digoxin toxicity. Aust Prescr 2016;39:18–20.10.18773/austprescr.2016.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2016-12-16
Accepted: 2017-1-23
Published Online: 2017-3-2
Published in Print: 2017-10-26

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 7.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button