Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
![Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %. Figure 2. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was not significantly different from zero. Bias−1.7 %±9.3 %. Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %. Figure 2. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was not significantly different from zero. Bias−1.7 %±9.3 %.](https://images.tandf.co.uk/common/jackets/crclarge/978041548/9780415484800.jpg)
Chapter
Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %. Figure 2. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was not significantly different from zero. Bias−1.7 %±9.3 %.
DOI link for Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %. Figure 2. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was not significantly different from zero. Bias−1.7 %±9.3 %.
Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %. Figure 2. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was not significantly different from zero. Bias−1.7 %±9.3 %.
ABSTRACT
Figure 1. Bland and Altman plot demonstrating the limits of agreement (±1.96). Bias was significantly different from zero (P<0.05). Bias −4.5 %±9.3 %.