These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20064254)

  • 1. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be biased when reporting the results of the second test in a screening trial conducted in series.
    Ringham BM; Alonzo TA; Grunwald GK; Glueck DH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Jan; 10():3. PubMed ID: 20064254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.
    Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Ringham BM; Glueck DH
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(15):1852-64. PubMed ID: 21495059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality.
    Glueck DH; Lamb MM; O'Donnell CI; Ringham BM; Brinton JT; Muller KE; Lewin JM; Alonzo TA; Pisano ED
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2009 Jan; 9():4. PubMed ID: 19154609
    [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. Adjusting for differential-verification bias in diagnostic-accuracy studies: a Bayesian approach.
    de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
    Epidemiology; 2011 Mar; 22(2):234-41. PubMed ID: 21228702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
    Islam N; Salameh JP; Leeflang MM; Hooft L; McGrath TA; van der Pol CB; Frank RA; Kazi S; Prager R; Hare SS; Dennie C; Spijker R; Deeks JJ; Dinnes J; Jenniskens K; Korevaar DA; Cohen JF; Van den Bruel A; Takwoingi Y; van de Wijgert J; Wang J; McInnes MD;
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2020 Nov; 11():CD013639. PubMed ID: 33242342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Conditional estimation of sensitivity and specificity from a phase 2 biomarker study allowing early termination for futility.
    Pepe MS; Feng Z; Longton G; Koopmeiners J
    Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):762-79. PubMed ID: 19097251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.
    Day E; Eldred-Evans D; Prevost AT; Ahmed HU; Fiorentino F
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Mar; 22(1):70. PubMed ID: 35300611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reducing decision errors in the paired comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests with Gaussian outcomes.
    Ringham BM; Alonzo TA; Brinton JT; Kreidler SM; Munjal A; Muller KE; Glueck DH
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Mar; 14():37. PubMed ID: 24597517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bias-corrected diagnostic performance of the naked-eye single-tube red-cell osmotic fragility test (NESTROFT): an effective screening tool for beta-thalassemia.
    Mamtani M; Jawahirani A; Das K; Rughwani V; Kulkarni H
    Hematology; 2006 Aug; 11(4):277-86. PubMed ID: 17178668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The use of "overall accuracy" to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests.
    Alberg AJ; Park JW; Hager BW; Brock MV; Diener-West M
    J Gen Intern Med; 2004 May; 19(5 Pt 1):460-5. PubMed ID: 15109345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
    Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
    de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Brophy J; Joseph L; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
    Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 175(8):847-53. PubMed ID: 22422923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Rutjes AW; Reitsma JB; Di Nisio M; Smidt N; van Rijn JC; Bossuyt PM
    CMAJ; 2006 Feb; 174(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 16477057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Off Bayes: effect of verification bias on posterior probabilities calculated using Bayes' theorem.
    Diamond GA
    Med Decis Making; 1992; 12(1):22-31. PubMed ID: 1538629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.