Table 3. Method comparison between Roller 20PN or iSED with Westergren method, divided into three groups, according to the ESR values.
| Patient group | N | Mean bias (95%CI) | Cusum test | Intercept (95%CI) | Slope (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roller 20 PN | |||||
| The whole range of ESR values | 752 | - 6.4 (- 7.1 to - 5.7) |
P < 0.010 | / | / |
| Group L | 597 | - 6.3 (- 6.8 to - 5.7) |
P = 0.110 | - 1.4 (- 2.3 to - 1.0) |
2.1 (2.0 to 2.3) |
| Group M | 125 | - 7.2 (- 9.9 to - 4.5) |
P = 0.080 | - 23.0 (- 36.0 to - 15.6) |
2.0 (1.7 to 2.4) |
| Group H | 30 | - 6.2 (- 14.0 to 1.6) |
P = 0.130 | - 3.2 (- 72.5 to 31.9) |
1.1 (0.7 to 1.9) |
| iSED | |||||
| The whole range of ESR values | 213 | 0.0 (- 1.4 to 1.5) |
P = 0.020 | / | / |
| Group L | 157 | - 2.8 (- 3.6 to - 2.0) |
P = 0.220 | - 1.0 (- 2.4 to 0.4) |
1.6 (1.4 to 1.8) |
| Group M | 39 | 4.8 (0.2 to 9.4) |
P = 0.770 | - 18.1 (- 37.4 to - 4.2) |
1.5 (1.0 to 2.0) |
| Group H | 17 | 15.2 (4.5 to 25.9) |
P = 0.580 | - 89.7 (- 208.2 to - 42.5) |
1.8 (1.3 to 3.4) |
| Group L with ESR values ≤ 20 mm; Group M with ESR values 21-60 mm and Group H with ESR values > 61 mm. P < 0.05 was significant deviation from linearity for cusum test. ESR – erythrocyte sedimentation rate. 95%Cl - 95% confidence interval. | |||||