Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Clinical research often involves measurement of continuous variables. However, clinical measurements are seldom precise. It is frequently necessary, therefore, either for the reproducibility of measurements to be assessed (observer agreement studies), or for measurements made by different techniques to be compared (method comparison studies). There are numerous ways in which data can be analysed and reported in such studies, and several pitfalls. In order to determine which methods are commonly used in the medical literature, a systematic review of studies involving measurement of carotid stenosis was performed. A random sample of 40 studies were selected for detailed assessment. The methods of analysis of reproducibility of measurement of stenosis and/or comparison of two alternative techniques of measurement were recorded. Ten different methods were identified. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods are discussed in a non-technical and non-mathematical manner, and illustrated using data from a study of measurement of carotid stenosis by two observers on 1001 carotid angiograms.


Journal article


J Neurol

Publication Date





825 - 834


Carotid Stenosis, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Observer Variation, Radiography, Reproducibility of Results