180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16918926)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia.
Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A sequential design to estimate sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic or screening test.
Wruck LM; Yiannoutsos CT; Hughes MD
Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(20):3458-73. PubMed ID: 16374904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive test in a repeated screening program.
Xu JL; Fagerstrom RM; Prorok PC; Kramer BS
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):651-60. PubMed ID: 15339287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A case-control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW women.
Yang B; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Roder D; Tracey E; Jelfs P
Cancer Causes Control; 2008 Aug; 19(6):569-76. PubMed ID: 18286380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A quasi-randomized trial on the effectiveness of an invitation letter to improve participation in a setting of opportunistic screening for cervical cancer.
de Jonge E; Cloes E; Op de Beeck L; Adriaens B; Lousbergh D; Orye GG; Buntinx F
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2008 Jun; 17(3):238-42. PubMed ID: 18414195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests.
Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L; Franco EL
Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(17):2527-46. PubMed ID: 12205697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical cancer prevention for all the world's women: genuine promise resides in skilled quality management rather than novel screening approaches.
Suba EJ; Donnelly AD; Furia LM; Huynh ML; Raab SS;
Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Mar; 35(3):187-91. PubMed ID: 17304532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of visual inspection and Papanicolau (PAP) smears for cervical cancer screening in Honduras: should PAP smears be abandoned?
Perkins RB; Langrish SM; Stern LJ; Figueroa J; Simon CJ
Trop Med Int Health; 2007 Sep; 12(9):1018-25. PubMed ID: 17875013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nationwide cervical cancer screening in Taiwan.
Koong SL; Yen AM; Chen TH
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S44-7. PubMed ID: 17227642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cervical cancer screening in medically underserved California Latina and non-Latina women: effect of age and regularity of Pap testing.
Howell LP; Gurusinghe S; Tabnak F; Sciortino S
Cancer Detect Prev; 2009; 32(5-6):372-9. PubMed ID: 19264426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
