The boundaries of agreement estimate the interval between some of the differences between the measures. Myles – Cui. Use of the Bland-Altman method to measure compliance with repeated measurements. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Volume 99, issue 3, 1 September 2007, pages 309-311, doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem214. academic.oup.com/bja/article/99/3/309/355972 This article shows how the limitations of comparative analysis with mixed effects can be applied relatively easily to the comparison of different devices, although there may be several or more complex variations in the design of the study. We compared these limit values to a fixed effects approach based on the bland-Altmans true value method varied, and the results were similar. Among the benefits of the mixed effects approach is the potential for better conclusion and greater generalization of outcomes for the target audience. [17.18] In addition, the mixed effects approach facilitates the detection of outliers in the diagnosis of the model and the assessment of the model`s sensitivity to these outliers. However, more distribution assumptions are needed;  and if the number of participants is very small (i.e. less than 10), a fixed effects approach may be preferred due to concerns about the accuracy of the estimated variance between participants.
 The limitations of the mixed effect of the agreement analysis allowed us to answer the question of which devices were most compliant with the gold standard in terms of the measurement of respiratory frequencies. In particular, the differences between participants and the estimated overall standard deviations, easily obtained from the results of the mixed effect model, clearly indicated that the accelerometer and chest-band devices achieved the best results. Unlike standard prediction intervals, the standard average distortion error is not included in the calculation of compliance limits. Instead, quantify the confidence intervals around the average bias separately uncertainty in this estimate exactly as they do around each of the boundaries of the agreement. Indeed, it is not necessary for the average value to be calculated from the same model as that used to calculate the limits of the agreement. Olofsen and colleagues suggest that either the gross (or large) average or the average of the participant level averages can be calculated.  Zou chooses to calculate the average of average values at the subscriber level.  In our dataset, we found that calculating the average value of the activity level (or equivalent to the model equivalent of mixed effects) leads to very strange estimates of average distortion. For the camera camera (rate per minute), this means, for example, that the adjustment of mixed effects for activities is -14.66 versus -4.35 without adjustment.
This is due to the fact that the number of non-absent respiratory frequency values for each activity for the camera device varied greatly from 1 to 144 and that each average of the average at the activity level would misweight the average estimate and would therefore be distorted.