179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19572317)
1. 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]
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. 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. 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]
7. A general approach to sample size determination for prevalence surveys that use dual test protocols.
Cheng D; Stamey JD; Branscum AJ
Biom J; 2007 Aug; 49(5):694-706. PubMed ID: 17722203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An exact test for detecting inconsistency in readers interpretation over time in screening mammograms.
Lee JH; Eschrich S; Beam C
Biom J; 2007 Aug; 49(5):672-81. PubMed ID: 17638286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessing accuracy of mammography in the presence of verification bias and intrareader correlation.
Zheng Y; Barlow WE; Cutter G
Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):259-68. PubMed ID: 15737102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reliability of nutritional screening and assessment tools.
Jones JM
Nutrition; 2004 Mar; 20(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 14990273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validity of nutritional screening and assessment tools.
Jones JM
Nutrition; 2004 Mar; 20(3):312-7. PubMed ID: 14990274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. A simple hybrid variance estimator for the Kaplan-Meier survival function.
Borkowf CB
Stat Med; 2005 Mar; 24(6):827-51. PubMed ID: 15558837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Latent variable modeling of diagnostic accuracy.
Yang I; Becker MP
Biometrics; 1997 Sep; 53(3):948-58. PubMed ID: 9290225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of two bias-corrected covariance estimators for generalized estimating equations.
Lu B; Preisser JS; Qaqish BF; Suchindran C; Bangdiwala SI; Wolfson M
Biometrics; 2007 Sep; 63(3):935-41. PubMed ID: 17825023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing the small sample performance of several variance estimators under competing risks.
Braun TM; Yuan Z
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(5):1170-80. PubMed ID: 16900556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Exact and approximate unconditional confidence intervals for proportion difference in the presence of incomplete data.
Tang ML; Ling MH; Tian GL
Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(4):625-41. PubMed ID: 19035467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Confidence interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data.
Zou G; Donner A
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):807-11. PubMed ID: 15339305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sample size determination for constrained longitudinal data analysis.
Lu K; Mehrotra DV; Liu G
Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(4):679-99. PubMed ID: 19051207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
