Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Deciding whether two measurement systems agree well enough to be used interchangeably is important in medical and clinical contexts. Recently, the probability of agreement was proposed as an alternative to comparison techniques such as correlation, regression, and the limits of agreement approach, when the systems' measurement errors are homoscedastic. However, in medical and clinical contexts, it is common for measurement variability to increase proportionally with the magnitude of measurement. In this article, we extend the probability of agreement analysis to accommodate heteroscedastic measurement errors, demonstrating the versatility of this simple metric. We illustrate its use with two examples: one involving the comparison of blood pressure measurement devices, and the other involving the comparison of serum cholesterol assays.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280217702540 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!