145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21856264)
1. 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]
2. Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study.
Sarian LO; Derchain SF; Naud P; Roteli-Martins C; Longatto-Filho A; Tatti S; Branca M; Erzen M; Serpa-Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Bragança JF; Lima TP; Maeda MY; Lörincz A; Dores GB; Costa S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 16156945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Study on the value assessment of various screening programs regarding cervical cancer screening strategy in the rural areas of China].
Li LY; Qiao ZQ; Zhang MF; Yang JP; Bao YP; An YT; Lei J; Xiong NH; Yu XH; Zhang X; Pan QJ; Qiao YL
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Oct; 28(10):964-7. PubMed ID: 18399140
[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. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa.
Sankaranarayanan R; Basu P; Wesley RS; Mahe C; Keita N; Mbalawa CC; Sharma R; Dolo A; Shastri SS; Nacoulma M; Nayama M; Somanathan T; Lucas E; Muwonge R; Frappart L; Parkin DM;
Int J Cancer; 2004 Jul; 110(6):907-13. PubMed ID: 15170675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Development of a multiplex assay for the detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in horses and its validation using Bayesian and conventional statistical methods.
Wagner B; Freer H; Rollins A; Erb HN; Lu Z; Gröhn Y
Vet Immunol Immunopathol; 2011 Dec; 144(3-4):374-81. PubMed ID: 21890217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Farnsworth A; Wright RG; McCool J; Barratt A; Simpson JM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Jan; 57(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 15019013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Visual inspection of the uterine cervix after the application of acetic acid in the detection of cervical carcinoma and its precursors.
Sankaranarayanan R; Wesley R; Somanathan T; Dhakad N; Shyamalakumary B; Amma NS; Parkin DM; Nair MK
Cancer; 1998 Nov; 83(10):2150-6. PubMed ID: 9827719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. On the interpretation of test sensitivity in the two-test two-population problem: assumptions matter.
Johnson WO; Gardner IA; Metoyer CN; Branscum AJ
Prev Vet Med; 2009 Oct; 91(2-4):116-21. PubMed ID: 19651450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Low proportion of false-negative smears in the Finnish program for cervical cancer screening.
Lönnberg S; Anttila A; Kotaniemi-Talonen L; Kujari H; Melkko J; Granroth G; Vornanen M; Pietiläinen T; Sankila A; Arola J; Luostarinen T; Nieminen P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Feb; 19(2):381-7. PubMed ID: 20142239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Estimation of test sensitivity and specificity when disease confirmation is limited to positive results.
Walter SD
Epidemiology; 1999 Jan; 10(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 9888282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimates for the sensitivity and false-positive rates for second trimester serum screening for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 with adjustment for cross-identification and double-positive results.
Benn PA; Ying J; Beazoglou T; Egan JF
Prenat Diagn; 2001 Jan; 21(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 11180240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing two medical tests when results of reference standard are unavailable for those negative via both tests.
Kondratovich MV
J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(1):145-66. PubMed ID: 18161546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of visual inspection of cervix and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening.
Tayyeb R; Khawaja NP; Malik N
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2003 Apr; 13(4):201-3. PubMed ID: 12718787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cervical cancer screening. Organised screening to avoid unnecessary conisation.
Prescrire Int; 2010 Aug; 19(108):172-7, 179. PubMed ID: 20939454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
