79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12933537)
1. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives.
Pepe MS; Alonzo TA
Biostatistics; 2001 Sep; 2(3):249-60. PubMed ID: 12933537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible.
Alonzo TA; Kittelson JM
Biometrics; 2006 Jun; 62(2):605-12. PubMed ID: 16918926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Small sample estimation of relative accuracy for binary screening tests.
Alonzo TA; Braun TM; Moskowitz CS
Stat Med; 2004 Jan; 23(1):21-34. PubMed ID: 14695637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.
Alonzo TA
Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):403-17. PubMed ID: 15543634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: a hierarchical model using multi-center data.
Stock EM; Stamey JD; Sankaranarayanan R; Young DM; Muwonge R; Arbyn M
Cancer Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 36(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 21856264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing two medical tests when results of reference standard are unavailable for those negative via both tests.
Kondratovich MV
J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(1):145-66. PubMed ID: 18161546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Farnsworth A; Wright RG; McCool J; Barratt A; Simpson JM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Jan; 57(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 15019013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Minority issues in prostate disease.
French DB; Jones LA
Med Clin North Am; 2005 Jul; 89(4):805-16. PubMed ID: 15925651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
Leyden WA; Manos MM; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Mouchawar J; Bischoff K; Yood MU; Gilbert J; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(9):675-83. PubMed ID: 15870438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme.
Andersen SB; Vejborg I; von Euler-Chelpin M
Acta Oncol; 2008; 47(4):550-5. PubMed ID: 18465321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive under a regimen involving various types of cancer screening tests.
Baker SG; Kramer BS
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 18416950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing accuracy in an unpaired post-market device study with incomplete disease assessment.
Alonzo TA
Biom J; 2009 Jun; 51(3):491-503. PubMed ID: 19572317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Early results of bladder-cancer screening in a high-risk population of heavy smokers.
Steiner H; Bergmeister M; Verdorfer I; Granig T; Mikuz G; Bartsch G; Stoehr B; Brunner A
BJU Int; 2008 Aug; 102(3):291-6. PubMed ID: 18336612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Avoiding verification bias in screening test evaluation in resource poor settings: a case study from Zimbabwe.
Gaffikin L; McGrath J; Arbyn M; Blumenthal PD
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(5):496-503. PubMed ID: 18827042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening test accuracy studies: how valid are our conclusions? Application to visual inspection methods for cervical screening.
Mahé C; Gaffikin L
Cancer Causes Control; 2005 Aug; 16(6):657-66. PubMed ID: 16049804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of prostate cancer: the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).
Schröder FH
Can J Urol; 2005 Feb; 12 Suppl 1():2-6; discussion 92-3. PubMed ID: 15780157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Empirical Bayes screening of many p-values with applications to microarray studies.
Datta S; Datta S
Bioinformatics; 2005 May; 21(9):1987-94. PubMed ID: 15691856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. An overview of results during the first phase of recruitment.
Ronco G; Brezzi S; Carozzi F; Dalla Palma P; Giorgi-Rossi P; Minucci D; Naldoni C; Segnan N; Zappa M; Zorzi M; Cuzick J;
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Oct; 107(1 Suppl 1):S230-2. PubMed ID: 17822751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Serologic screening for celiac disease in children: a comparison between established assays and tests with deamidated gliadin-derived peptides plus conjugates for both IgA and IgG antibodies.
Aberg AK; Olcén P
APMIS; 2009 Nov; 117(11):808-13. PubMed ID: 19845531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
