1. Reporting of method comparison studies: a review of advice, an assessment of current practice, and specific suggestions for future reports 
A. Abu-Arafeh, H. Jordan, G. Drummond 
British Journal of Anaesthesia 
Volume 117, Issue 5, Pages (November 2016)
DOI: /bja/aew320
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

2. Fig 1
Influence of multiple measurements in several subjects (indicated by the different symbols) on the precision of the limits of agreement. Data replotted from Bland and Altman (2007) J Biopharm Stat Grey areas represent the 95% CI for the Limits of Agreement.
British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aew320)
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

3. Fig 2
Distribution of scores achieved by the papers reviewed. The median score was 57%, (quartiles 50, 70).
British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aew320)
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

4. Fig 3 Frequency with which the criteria were found in the test survey.
British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aew320)
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

5. Fig 4
An example taken from one of the papers we surveyed, where a figure presented multiple measurements taken from 20 subjects. We emphasize two data sets from individual subjects with substantial variation in bias. (compare A with B). Other subjects in the data presented showed variable precision. These features were barely discernible in the original publication.
British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aew320)
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions