Testing Reproducibility

  • Ton J. Cleophas
  • Aeilko H. Zwinderman


Poor reproducibility of diagnostic criteria is seldom acknowledged as a cause for low precision in clinical research. Also very few clinical reports communicate the levels of reproducibility of the diagnostic criteria they use. For example, of 11–13 original research papers published per issue in the ten last 2004 issues of the journal Circulation, none did, and of 5–6 original research papers published per issue in the ten last 2004 issues of the Journal of the American Association only 1 out of 12 did. These papers involved quality of life assessments, which are, notoriously, poorly reproducible. Instead, many reports used the averages of multiple measurements in order to improve the precision of the instruments used without further comment on reproducibility. For example, means of three blood pressure measurements, means of three cardiac cycles, average results of morphometric cell studies from two examiners, means of five random fields for cytogenetic studies were reported. Poor reproducibility of diagnostic criteria is, obviously, a recognized but rarely tested problem in clinical research. Evidence-based medicine is under pressure due to the poor reproducibility of clinical trials (Julius 2003; Cleophas and Cleophas 2003). As long as the possibility of poorly reproducible diagnostic criteria has not been systematically addressed, this very possibility cannot be excluded as a contributing cause for this. The current chapter reviews simple methods for routine assessment of reproducibility of diagnostic criteria/tests. These tests can answer questions like (1) do two techniques used to measure a particular variable, in otherwise identical circumstances, produce the same results, (2) does a single observer obtain the same results when he/she takes repeated measurements in identical circumstances, (3) do two observers using the same method of measurement obtain the same result.


Congenital Heart Disease Poor Reproducibility Paired Observation Identical Circumstance Original Research Paper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anonymous Calculating Cohen’s kappas. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  2. Cleophas GM, Cleophas TJ (2003) Clinical trials in jeopardy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 41:51–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cleophas AF, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas TJ (2001) Reproducibility of polynomes of ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Perfusion 13:328–35Google Scholar
  4. Imbert-Bismut F, Messous D, Thibaut V, Myers RB, Piton A, Thabut D, Devers L, Hainque B, Mecardier A, Poynard T (2004) Intra-laboratory analytical variability of biochemical markers of fibrosis and activity and reference ranges in healthy blood donors. Clin Chem Lab Med 42:323–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Julius S (2003) The ALLHAT study: if you believe in evidence-based medicine. Stick to it. J Hypertens 21:453–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Perloff JK (1991) The clinical recognition of congenital heart disease. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Petrie A, Sabin C (2000) Assessing agreement. In: Medical statistics at a glance. Blackwell Science, London, p 93Google Scholar
  8. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 2:420–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. SPSS Statistical Software, Chicago, IL, Accessed 15 Dec 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ton J. Cleophas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aeilko H. Zwinderman
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Applied to Clinical TrialsEuropean Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical MedicineLyonFrance
  2. 2.Department of MedicineAlbert Schweitzer HospitalDordrechtNetherlands
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations