The well‐known agreement interval by Bland and Altman is extensively applied in method comparison studies. Two clinical measurement methods are considered interchangeable if their differences are not clinically significant. The agreement interval is commonly applied to assess the spread of the differences. However, this interval is approximate (too narrow) and several authors propose calculating a confidence interval around each bound. This article demonstrates that this approach is misleading, awkward, and confusing. On the other hand, tolerance intervals are exact and can include a confidence level if needed. Tolerance intervals are also easier to calculate and to interpret. Real data sets are used to illustrate the tolerance intervals with the R package BivRegBLS under normal or log‐normal assumptions. Furthermore, it is also explained how to assess the coverage probabilities of the tolerance intervals with simulations.

中文翻译：

---

允许或同意：使用BivRegBLS R Package进行方法比较研究中的公差区间指南。

布兰德和奥特曼著名的协议间隔广泛应用于方法比较研究。如果两种临床测量方法的差异在临床上不显着，则认为它们可以互换。协议间隔通常用于评估差异的传播。但是，这个间隔是近似的（太窄），一些作者建议计算每个边界附近的置信区间。本文演示了这种方法是误导，笨拙和令人困惑的。另一方面，公差区间是精确的，并且在需要时可以包括置信度。公差区间也更容易计算和解释。实际数据集用于说明在正常或对数正常假设下，R包BivRegBLS的公差区间。此外，