123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16775521)
1. What the clinician really needs to know: questioning the clinical usefulness of sensitivity and specificity in studies of screening tests.
Camp BW
J Dev Behav Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 27(3):226-30. PubMed ID: 16775521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Evaluation of diagnostic or screening procedures. Validity of tests, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values. Definition and indications for mass screening].
Durand-Zaleski I; Bastuji-Garin S
Rev Prat; 2000 May; 50(10):1155-8. PubMed ID: 10905104
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Verification bias in pediatric studies evaluating diagnostic tests.
Bates AS; Margolis PA; Evans AT
J Pediatr; 1993 Apr; 122(4):585-90. PubMed ID: 8463905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Evaluation of diagnostic or screening procedures. Test validity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values. Definition of and indications for mass screening].
Rusch E
Rev Prat; 1997 Dec; 47(19):2189-93. PubMed ID: 9501613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Screening for disease: making evidence-based choices.
Fields MM; Chevlen E
Clin J Oncol Nurs; 2006 Feb; 10(1):73-6. PubMed ID: 16482730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The logistic modeling of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a diagnostic test.
Coughlin SS; Trock B; Criqui MH; Pickle LW; Browner D; Tefft MC
J Clin Epidemiol; 1992 Jan; 45(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 1738006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care.
Limbos MM; Joyce DP
J Dev Behav Pediatr; 2011 Sep; 32(7):499-511. PubMed ID: 21760526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating bias in validity studies of developmental/behavioral screening tests.
Camp BW
J Dev Behav Pediatr; 2007 Jun; 28(3):234-40. PubMed ID: 17565292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity.
Buderer NM
Acad Emerg Med; 1996 Sep; 3(9):895-900. PubMed ID: 8870764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.
Akobeng AK
Acta Paediatr; 2007 Mar; 96(3):338-41. PubMed ID: 17407452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A quick and reliable screening measure for OCD in youth: reliability and validity of the obsessive compulsive scale of the Child Behavior Checklist.
Geller DA; Doyle R; Shaw D; Mullin B; Coffey B; Petty C; Vivas F; Biederman J
Compr Psychiatry; 2006; 47(3):234-40. PubMed ID: 16635654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Evaluation of diagnostic or detection procedures. Validity of tests, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values. Definition of and indications for mass screening].
Chabot JM
Rev Prat; 1991 Nov; 41(24):2529-32. PubMed ID: 1803469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Usefulness of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for identifying youths with hypercholesterolemia.
O'Loughlin J; Lauzon B; Paradis G; Hanley J; Lévy E; Delvin E; Lambert M
Pediatrics; 2004 Jun; 113(6):1723-7. PubMed ID: 15173497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluating screening tests for dementia and cognitive impairment in a heterogeneous population in the presence of verification bias.
Donald A; Van Til L
Int Psychogeriatr; 2001; 13 Supp 1():203-14. PubMed ID: 11892968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Determining sample size for a binary diagnostic test in the presence of verification bias.
Shan G; Zhang H; Jiang T
J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(6):1193-1202. PubMed ID: 29553878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening for developmental delay in the setting of a community pediatric clinic: a prospective assessment of parent-report questionnaires.
Rydz D; Srour M; Oskoui M; Marget N; Shiller M; Birnbaum R; Majnemer A; Shevell MI
Pediatrics; 2006 Oct; 118(4):e1178-86. PubMed ID: 17015506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions.
Leeflang MM; Moons KG; Reitsma JB; Zwinderman AH
Clin Chem; 2008 Apr; 54(4):729-37. PubMed ID: 18258670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance.
Torrance-Rynard VL; Walter SD
Stat Med; 1997 Oct; 16(19):2157-75. PubMed ID: 9330426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Improving the diagnosis of bipolar disorder: predictive value of screening tests.
Phelps JR; Ghaemi SN
J Affect Disord; 2006 Jun; 92(2-3):141-8. PubMed ID: 16529822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
