313 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18827042)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies.
Lu Y; Dendukuri N; Schiller I; Joseph L
Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2532-43. PubMed ID: 20799249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Efficacy of visual inspection of the cervix using acetic acid in cervical cancer screening: a comparison with cervical cytology.
Akinola OI; Fabamwo AO; Oshodi YA; Banjo AA; Odusanya O; Gbadegesin A; Tayo A
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Oct; 27(7):703-5. PubMed ID: 17999297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present.
Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
Stat Med; 2003 Sep; 22(17):2711-21. PubMed ID: 12939781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Alternative cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: Experiences of visual inspection by acetic acid with single-visit approach in the first five provinces of Thailand.
Palanuwong B
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Feb; 47(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 17261102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: evaluation by doctor versus paramedical worker.
Bhatla N; Mukhopadhyay A; Joshi S; Kumar A; Kriplani A; Pandey RM; Verma K
Indian J Cancer; 2004; 41(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15105577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Correlation of cervical cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid in HIV-positive women.
Akinwuntan AL; Adesina OA; Okolo CA; Oluwasola OA; Oladokun A; Ifemeje AA; Adewole IF
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2008 Aug; 28(6):638-41. PubMed ID: 19003664
[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. Estimating disease prevalence in two-phase studies.
Alonzo TA; Pepe MS; Lumley T
Biostatistics; 2003 Apr; 4(2):313-26. PubMed ID: 12925524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in the Netherlands: the NLCS-AIR study.
Brunekreef B; Beelen R; Hoek G; Schouten L; Bausch-Goldbohm S; Fischer P; Armstrong B; Hughes E; Jerrett M; van den Brandt P
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Mar; (139):5-71; discussion 73-89. PubMed ID: 19554969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic test evaluation: a Bayesian approach.
Buzoianu M; Kadane JB
Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(13):2453-73. PubMed ID: 17979150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of cervicitis on visual inspection with acetic acid.
Davis-Dao CA; Cremer M; Felix J; Cortessis VK
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2008 Oct; 12(4):282-6. PubMed ID: 18820542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Visual inspection with acetic acid test qualities in a secondary setting.
Chumworathayi B; Eamratsameekool W; Kularbkaew C; Chumworathayi P
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2008 Oct; 34(5):909-13. PubMed ID: 18834349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
