Practice Practice Pointer Your results may vary: the imprecision of medical measurements BMJ 2020; 368 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m149 (Published 20 February 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;368:m149 This infographic will display on browsers that support iframes. Article Related content Metrics Responses Peer review Data supplement Web Extra Data Supplement - Appendix: Calculation of variability in medical measurements Data Supplement - Supplemental table: Details of variability estimates for routine medical measurements Related articles Paper Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis Published: 26 June 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1423 Letter Interpreting test results: don’t blame the tools Published: 25 March 2020; BMJ 368 doi:10.1136/bmj.m1162 Letter Medicine, so far from an exact science Published: 26 March 2020; BMJ 368 doi:10.1136/bmj.m1188 See more How to conduct written online consultations with patients in primary care BMJ February 24, 2021, 372 n264; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n264 Returning to physical activity after covid-19 BMJ January 08, 2021, 372 m4721; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4721 The use of human donor milk BMJ November 17, 2020, 371 m4243; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4243 Diabetic ketoacidosis with SGLT2 inhibitors BMJ November 12, 2020, 371 m4147; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4147 Recognising and explaining functional neurological disorder BMJ October 21, 2020, 371 m3745; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3745 Cited by... Vitamin D and the athlete-patient: state of the artAbstract Fulltext PDF Medicine, so far from an exact scienceAbstract Fulltext PDF Interpreting test results: dont blame the toolsAbstract Fulltext PDF
