Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Table of Contents Thromb Haemost 2003; 90(03): 555-556DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1613419 Letters to the Editor Schattauer GmbH Method comparison: correlation is not enough to decide about agreement and clinical accuracy Piet Meijer Recommend Article Abstract Buy Article Full Text References References 1 Serra J, Sales M, Chitolie A. et al. Multicentre evaluation of IL Test™ Free PS : a fully automated assay to quantify free protein S. Thromb Haemost 2002; 88: 975-83. 2 Bioanalytical Method Validation, Guidance for Industry. Biopharmaceutics Coordinating Committee in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, United States 3 White GH, Fräser CG. The evaluation kit for clinical chemistry: A practical guide for the evaluation of methods, instruments and reagent kits. J Autom Chem 1984; 6: 122-41. 4 Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe S. et al. Analytical method validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sciences 1992; 81: 309-12. 5 Bland JM, Altaian DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307-10. 6 Bland JM, Altaian DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995; 346: 1085-7. 7 Hyltoft Petersen P, Stockl D, Blaabjerg O. et al. Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of field method with a reference method b use of difference plots. Clin Chem 1997; 43: 2039-46. 8 Zweig MH, Robertsen EA. Why we need better test evaluations. Clin Chem 1982; 28: 1272-6. 9 Tietz NW. Accuracy in clinical chemistry - Does anybody care?. Clin Chem 1994; 40: 859-61.
