  Objective: Bland and Altman plot method is a widely cited and applied
graphical approach for assessing the equivalence of quantitative measurement
techniques, usually aiming to replace a traditional technique with a new, less
invasive, or less expensive one. Although easy to communicate, Bland and Altman
plot is often misinterpreted by lacking suitable inferential statistical
support. Usual alternatives, such as Pearson's correlation or ordinal
least-square linear regression, also fail to locate the weakness of each
measurement technique. Method: Here, inferential statistics support for
equivalence between measurement techniques is proposed in three nested tests
based on structural regressions to assess the equivalence of structural means
(accuracy), the equivalence of structural variances (precision), and
concordance with the structural bisector line (agreement in measurements
obtained from the same subject), by analytical methods and robust approach by
bootstrapping. Graphical outputs are also implemented to follow Bland and
Altman's principles for easy communication. Results: The performance of this
method is shown and confronted with five data sets from previously published
articles that applied Bland and Altman's method. One case demonstrated strict
equivalence, three cases showed partial equivalence, and one showed poor
equivalence. The developed R package containing open codes and data are
available with installation instructions for free distribution at Harvard
Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AGJPZH. It is possible to test whether
two techniques may have full equivalence, preserving graphical communication
according to Bland and Altman's principles, but adding robust and suitable
inferential statistics. Decomposing the equivalence in accuracy, precision, and
agreement helps the location of the source of the problem in order to fix a new
technique.
