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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20954220)

  • 21. An ROC-type measure of diagnostic accuracy when the gold standard is continuous-scale.
    Obuchowski NA
    Stat Med; 2006 Feb; 25(3):481-93. PubMed ID: 16287217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of studies of diagnostic tests.
    Scott IA; Greenberg PB; Poole PJ
    Intern Med J; 2008 Feb; 38(2):120-9. PubMed ID: 17645501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. ['Gold standard,' not 'golden standard'].
    Kneepkens CM
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2006 Mar; 150(11):644-5; author reply 645. PubMed ID: 16610511
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards.
    Valenstein PN
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1990 Feb; 93(2):252-8. PubMed ID: 2405632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Simple nomograms to calculate sample size in diagnostic studies.
    Carley S; Dosman S; Jones SR; Harrison M
    Emerg Med J; 2005 Mar; 22(3):180-1. PubMed ID: 15735264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluating medical diagnostic tests at the subunit level in the presence of verification bias.
    Barnhart HX; Kosinski AS
    Stat Med; 2003 Jul; 22(13):2161-76. PubMed ID: 12820281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Improved confidence intervals for the sensitivity at a fixed level of specificity of a continuous-scale diagnostic test.
    Zhou XH; Qin G
    Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):465-77. PubMed ID: 15635678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Anticipating missing reference standard data when planning diagnostic accuracy studies.
    Naaktgeboren CA; de Groot JA; Rutjes AW; Bossuyt PM; Reitsma JB; Moons KG
    BMJ; 2016 Feb; 352():i402. PubMed ID: 26861453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials.
    Ferrante di Ruffano L; Hyde CJ; McCaffery KJ; Bossuyt PM; Deeks JJ
    BMJ; 2012 Feb; 344():e686. PubMed ID: 22354600
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The Biplot as a diagnostic tool of local dependence in latent class models. A medical application.
    Sepúlveda R; Vicente-Villardón JL; Galindo MP
    Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(11):1855-69. PubMed ID: 18265437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Testing diagnostic tests: why size matters.
    Funk MJ; LeGrys VA
    J Pediatr; 2005 Feb; 146(2):159-62. PubMed ID: 15689897
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Knowing how to read a scientific article. 4. Knowing how to apply a diagnostic test].
    Coggiola M; Bobbio M; Bongioanni S; Demichelis B; Longo M
    G Ital Cardiol; 1995 Sep; 25(9):1211-22. PubMed ID: 8529859
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited.
    de Groot JA; Janssen KJ; Zwinderman AH; Moons KG; Reitsma JB
    Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(28):5880-9. PubMed ID: 18752256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A statistical method was used for the meta-analysis of tests for latent TB in the absence of a gold standard, combining random-effect and latent-class methods to estimate test accuracy.
    Sadatsafavi M; Shahidi N; Marra F; FitzGerald MJ; Elwood KR; Guo N; Marra CA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):257-69. PubMed ID: 19692208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An evidence-based approach to test accuracy studies in gynecologic oncology: the 'STARD' checklist.
    Selman TJ; Khan KS; Mann CH
    Gynecol Oncol; 2005 Mar; 96(3):575-8. PubMed ID: 15721396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A philosophical perspective supports the need for patient-outcome studies in diagnostic test evaluation.
    Sonke GS; Verbeek AL; Kiemeney LA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):58-61. PubMed ID: 18619792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Weighted 2 x 2 kappa coefficients: recommended indices of diagnostic accuracy for evidence-based practice.
    Gilchrist JM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1045-53. PubMed ID: 19278830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of weighted kappa coefficients of multiple binary diagnostic tests done on the same subjects.
    Roldán Nofuentes JA; Luna del Castillo JD
    Stat Med; 2010 Sep; 29(20):2149-65. PubMed ID: 20809538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluating qualitative assays using sensitivity and specificity.
    Zhong B
    J Biopharm Stat; 2002 Nov; 12(4):409-24. PubMed ID: 12477066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Systematic reviews in practice. X. Searching, selecting and the methodological assessment of diagnostic evaluation research].
    Devillé WL; Bossuyt PM; de Vet HC; Bezemer PD; Bouter LM; Assendelft WJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Nov; 146(48):2281-4. PubMed ID: 12497754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.