Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Continuing Education
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
LetterLetters to the Editor

Self-Reported Weight and Height in Nuclear Medicine Patients: A Common Mistake Confusing Reliability and Accuracy

Siamak Sabour
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology December 2020, 48 (4) 386; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.232546
Siamak Sabour
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran 198353-5511 E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: s.sabour@sbmu.ac.ir
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

TO THE EDITOR: I read with great interest the article by Blum et al. recently published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (1). The authors aimed to assess the reliability of the self-reported weight and height of nuclear medicine patients in view of recommendations for weight-dependent tracer application for imaging and therapy. In total, 824 patients (334 men and 490 women) were asked to report their weight and height before imaging or therapy, along with their level of confidence that the weight and height they were reporting were correct. Subsequently, the weight and height of each patient were measured, and body mass index, body surface area, and lean body mass were calculated. Differences between the reported and true values were compared for statistical significance. The results indicated that an over- or underestimation of weight by at least 10% was observed in 2% of the patients, and height was overestimated by 1% of the patients. Surprisingly, the authors concluded that most self-reported weights and heights of nuclear medicine patients are accurate.

However, there were some methodologic issues regarding accuracy and reliability. First, it is crucial to realize that accuracy and reliability are two completely different methodologic issues. The term accuracy means the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard. In other words, accuracy is the most important criterion for the quality of a test and refers to whether the test measures what it claims to measure. The core design for determining and measuring the accuracy of a test is a comparison between an index test and a reference standard by applying both on similar people who are suspected of having the target result of interest. The term reliability denotes refinement of a measurement, calculation, or specification, especially as represented by the number of digits given. Accuracy studies should report significant and comprehensive information together with the absolute number of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results or should provide information that allows calculation of a minimum of one diagnostic performance indicator (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, or likelihood ratio). Therefore, we recommend applying the most appropriate estimates to evaluate the accuracy of the self-reported weight and height. The Pearson r or the Spearman ρ can be applied to assess accuracy for quantitative variables. However, for qualitative (binary) variables, some of the well-known ways to assess accuracy include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio (ranging from 1 to infinity; the higher the positive likelihood ratio, the more accurate the test), negative likelihood ratio (ranging from 0 to 1; the lower the negative likelihood ratio, the more accurate the test), diagnostic accuracy, and odds ratio (ratio of true results to false results) (2–8).

Second, what is critically important is reliability, which is conceptually different from accuracy. Consequently, our methodologic and statistical approach to assessing reliability should be different. Depending on the type of variable, appropriate estimates to assess reliability are completely different from those used to assess accuracy. For quantitative variables, we can apply either the intraclass correlation coefficient or Bland–Altman plots. For qualitative variables, we can apply the weighted κ or the Fleiss κ to assess intra- or interobserver reliability, respectively.

Thus, because of the inappropriate use of statistical tests (Student t test and ANOVA) for accuracy and reliability analyses, as well as misinterpretation of the results, there may be a high level of uncertainty about the conclusion of Blum et al. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that the self-reported weights and heights of nuclear medicine patients are accurate.

Footnotes

  • Published online Dec. 6, 2019.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Blum KS,
    2. Büsch N,
    3. Beyer T,
    4. et al
    . In patients we trust: reliability of self-reported weight and height in nuclear medicine patients. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:133–136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Sabour S
    . Reliability of immunocytochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization on fine-needle aspiration cytology samples of breast cancers: methodological issues. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;44:1128–1129.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.
    1. Sabour S
    . Reliability of automatic vibratory equipment for ultrasonic strain measurement of the median nerve: common mistake. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:1119–1120.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    1. Sabour S,
    2. Dastjerdi EV
    . Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs: a methodological error. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:848.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Sabour S
    . Reliability of the ASA physical status scale in clinical practice: methodological issues. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:162–163.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Sabour S,
    2. Ghassemi F
    . The validity and reliability of a signal impact assessment tool: statistical issue to avoid misinterpretation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:1215–1216.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    1. Sabour S
    . Validity and reliability of the new Canadian Nutrition Screening Tool in the ‘real-world’ hospital setting: methodological issues. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2015;69:864.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sabour S
    . Methodologic concerns in reliability of noncalcified coronary artery plaque burden quantification [reply]. AJR. 2014;203:W343.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 48 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 48, Issue 4
December 1, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Self-Reported Weight and Height in Nuclear Medicine Patients: A Common Mistake Confusing Reliability and Accuracy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Self-Reported Weight and Height in Nuclear Medicine Patients: A Common Mistake Confusing Reliability and Accuracy
Siamak Sabour
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2020, 48 (4) 386; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.119.232546

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Self-Reported Weight and Height in Nuclear Medicine Patients: A Common Mistake Confusing Reliability and Accuracy
Siamak Sabour
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2020, 48 (4) 386; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.119.232546
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Radiation Treatments, Autoimmune Activation, and PET Imaging
  • Editorial Board Gender Balance
  • Regarding “Waxing and Waning Presentation of Isolated Cardiac Sarcoidosis on Sequential 18F-FDG PET Exams”
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Powered by HighWire