175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21495059)
1. 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]
2. Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect.
Walter SD; Macaskill P; Lord SJ; Irwig L
Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1129-38. PubMed ID: 22351623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. A new method to address verification bias in studies of clinical screening tests: cervical cancer screening assays as an example.
Xue X; Kim MY; Castle PE; Strickler HD
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Mar; 67(3):343-53. PubMed ID: 24332397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard.
Albert PS
Stat Med; 2009 Feb; 28(5):780-97. PubMed ID: 19101935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review.
Biesheuvel C; Barratt A; Howard K; Houssami N; Irwig L
Lancet Oncol; 2007 Dec; 8(12):1129-1138. PubMed ID: 18054882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.
Carney PA; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Yabroff KR; Sickles EA; Buist DS; Kasales CJ; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Dignan MB; Weaver DL; Kerlikowske K;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 17242246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.
Kuhl CK; Strobel K; Bieling H; Leutner C; Schild HH; Schrading S
Radiology; 2017 May; 283(2):361-370. PubMed ID: 28221097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of screening whole-breast sonography as a supplemental tool in conjunction with mammography in women with dense breasts.
Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Kim H
J Ultrasound Med; 2013 Sep; 32(9):1573-8. PubMed ID: 23980217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs.
Colditz GA
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr; 2010; 50 Suppl 1(s1):10-2. PubMed ID: 21132580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.
Health Quality Ontario
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2016; 16(15):1-71. PubMed ID: 27468326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
