Reliability of assessment of nasal flow rate for nostril selection during nasotracheal intubation: common mistakes in reliability analysis

Reproducibility of the external surface position in left‐breast DIBH radiotherapy with spirometer‐based monitoring: methodological mistake

“…Moreover, statistics cannot provide a simple substitute for clinical judgment. (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) As the authors pointed out in their conclusion, spirometer-based control does not guarantee a reproducible position of the external surface in left-breast DIBH radiotherapy. Such a conclusion is simply a misinterpretation, due simply to inappropriate use of statistical test.…”

“…(1) Such descriptive results has nothing to do with reliability analysis. (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Why did the authors not used well-known tests for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or weighted kappa? (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Regarding reliability or agreement, it is good to know that ICC should be used for quantitative variables and weighted kappa (not simple kappa, because kappa has its own limitations, too) for qualitative ones.…”

“…(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Why did the authors not used well-known tests for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or weighted kappa? (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Regarding reliability or agreement, it is good to know that ICC should be used for quantitative variables and weighted kappa (not simple kappa, because kappa has its own limitations, too) for qualitative ones. (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Moreover, Fassi and colleagues reported no significant dose distribution variations in their study.…”

“…(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Regarding reliability or agreement, it is good to know that ICC should be used for quantitative variables and weighted kappa (not simple kappa, because kappa has its own limitations, too) for qualitative ones. (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Moreover, Fassi and colleagues reported no significant dose distribution variations in their study. (1) It is crucial to know that statistically significant is completely different from clinically importance, and should not be confused with each other.…”

Validity and reliability of the 13C-methionine breath test for the detection of moderate hyperhomocysteinemia in Mexican adults; statistical issues in validity and reliability analysis

“…Sensitivity Negative]), likelihood ratio positive and likelihood ratio negative as well as diagnostic accuracy [(both true positive and true negative results/total) × 100] and odds ratio (true results/false results) preferably more than 50, are among the tests to evaluate the validity of a single test compared to a gold standard [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Accuracy (validity) is a completely different concept with precision (reliability) and should not be confused with each other [2,3].…”