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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21145764)

  • 1. Verification bias an underrecognized source of error in assessing the efficacy of medical imaging.
    Petscavage JM; Richardson ML; Carr RB
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):343-6. PubMed ID: 21145764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An interactive web-based tool for detecting verification (work-up) bias in studies of the efficacy of diagnostic imaging.
    Richardson ML; Petscavage JM
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Dec; 17(12):1580-3. PubMed ID: 20926316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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. Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in radiology.
    Pinto A; Acampora C; Pinto F; Kourdioukova E; Romano L; Verstraete K
    Eur J Radiol; 2011 Jun; 78(3):372-6. PubMed ID: 21255952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Parallel diagnostic universes: one patient. How radiologists and emergency physicians share diagnostic error.
    Jones DN; Crock C
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Apr; 53(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 19527359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Imputation approaches for estimating diagnostic accuracy for multiple tests from partially verified designs.
    Albert PS
    Biometrics; 2007 Sep; 63(3):947-57. PubMed ID: 17825024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Diagnostic errors in patients dying in hospital: radiology's contribution.
    Heriot GS; McKelvie P; Pitman AG
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Apr; 53(2):188-93. PubMed ID: 19527365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How independent are multiple 'independent' diagnostic classifications?
    Brenner H
    Stat Med; 1996 Jul; 15(13):1377-86. PubMed ID: 8841648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. How to deal with double partial verification when evaluating two index tests in relation to a reference test?
    van Geloven N; Brooze KA; Opmeer BC; Mol BW; Zwinderman AH
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1265-76. PubMed ID: 22161741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods.
    de Groot JA; Janssen KJ; Zwinderman AH; Bossuyt PM; Reitsma JB; Moons KG
    Ann Epidemiol; 2011 Feb; 21(2):139-48. PubMed ID: 21109454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Robustness of prevalence estimates derived from misclassified data from administrative databases.
    Ladouceur M; Rahme E; Pineau CA; Joseph L
    Biometrics; 2007 Mar; 63(1):272-9. PubMed ID: 17447953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Post hoc choice of cut points introduced bias to diagnostic research.
    Ewald B
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):798-801. PubMed ID: 16828672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.