A measurement comparability study to support instrument harmonization in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging

Clicks: 1
ID: 318192
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #293 of 305 articles by views in american journal of epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 305 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Longitudinal studies are essential for understanding health trajectories, but necessary upgrades to measurement instruments over time may compromise data comparability. The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging conducted a measurement comparability study to quantify systematic differences between instruments and derive conversion equations to correct for any differences. Overall, 50 participants aged ≥ 45 years (52% females) underwent repeated assessments with old and new instruments including the blood pressure monitor, electrocardiogram (ECG), carotid ultrasound, spirometer, audiometer, tonometer, and dynamometer. Linear mixed-effects models were used to identify systematic differences. Cohen's d was used to assess standardized mean difference, Bland-Altman plots evaluated agreement between instruments, and repeatability was assessed within instruments. Mixed-effects models showed no clinically meaningful difference across instruments, except for systolic blood pressure (SBP), which was on average 5.19 mmHg (95% CI, 2.64, 7.74) higher using the new instrument. Cohen's d demonstrated moderate systematic differences for several measures. Repeatability estimates showed good-to-excellent reliability for most measures; however, certain ECG and tonometer parameters showed moderate or poor precision. The results support the utility of conversion equations to account for systematic differences between instruments. The difference in SBP warrants the implementation of a conversion equation, whereas it is unclear for measures with moderate differences.
Reference Key
openalex_W7165539363 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Talha Rafiq, Lauren E. Griffith, P L Raina, Christina Wolfson, Susan Kirkland, Cynthia Balion, Andrew P. Costa, Varun Chaudhary, MyLinh Duong, Danielle Glista, Philip Joseph, Maureen J. MacDonald, Jack Scott, David B. Hogan, Edwin van den Heuvel
Journal american journal of epidemiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/aje/kwag137
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag137
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.