101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14695637)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies.
Li J; Fine J
Stat Med; 2004 Aug; 23(16):2537-50. PubMed ID: 15287083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. An ROC-type measure of diagnostic accuracy when the gold standard is continuous-scale.
Obuchowski NA
Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(3):481-93. PubMed ID: 16287217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bayesian sample size determination for prevalence and diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard test.
Dendukuri N; Rahme E; Bélisle P; Joseph L
Biometrics; 2004 Jun; 60(2):388-97. PubMed ID: 15180664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bayesian sample size for diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard: Comparing identifiable with non-identifiable models.
Dendukuri N; Bélisle P; Joseph L
Stat Med; 2010 Nov; 29(26):2688-97. PubMed ID: 20803558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Nonparametric estimation of ROC curves in the absence of a gold standard.
Zhou XH; Castelluccio P; Zhou C
Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):600-9. PubMed ID: 16011710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. From diagnostic accuracy to accurate diagnosis: interpreting a test result with confidence.
Zou G
Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 15155020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparative study of four candidate strategies to detect cervical cancer in different health care settings.
Kamal MM; Sapkal RU; Sarodey CS; Munshi MM; Alsi YD; Chande MA; Hingway SR; Dandige S; Kane US; Kshirsagar R; Tangsale M; Zodpey S; Patel AB; Mamtani M; Kulkarni H
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2007 Aug; 33(4):480-9. PubMed ID: 17688615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Estimation of test sensitivity and specificity when disease confirmation is limited to positive results.
Walter SD
Epidemiology; 1999 Jan; 10(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 9888282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bayesian clinical reasoning: does intuitive estimation of likelihood ratios on an ordinal scale outperform estimation of sensitivities and specificities?
Moreira J; Bisoffi Z; Narváez A; Van den Ende J
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):934-40. PubMed ID: 19018928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The utility of prior information and stratification for parameter estimation with two screening tests but no gold standard.
Gustafson P
Stat Med; 2005 Apr; 24(8):1203-17. PubMed ID: 15558709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random.
Kosinski AS; Chen Y; Lyles RH
Stat Med; 2010 Jul; 29(15):1572-9. PubMed ID: 20552570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
