172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22422923)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods.
Vamvakas EC
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1998 Aug; 122(8):675-86. PubMed ID: 9701328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating diagnostic accuracy in the face of multiple reference standards.
Naaktgeboren CA; de Groot JA; van Smeden M; Moons KG; Reitsma JB
Ann Intern Med; 2013 Aug; 159(3):195-202. PubMed ID: 23922065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bayesian estimation for performance measures of two diagnostic tests in the presence of verification bias.
Aragon DC; Martinez EZ; Achcar JA
J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Jul; 20(4):821-34. PubMed ID: 20496208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.
Macaskill P
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Sep; 57(9):925-32. PubMed ID: 15504635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis.
Leeflang MM; Bossuyt PM; Irwig L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 18778913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses.
Suzuki S; Moro-oka T; Choudhry NK
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 May; 57(5):461-9. PubMed ID: 15196616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.
Leeflang MM
Clin Microbiol Infect; 2014 Feb; 20(2):105-13. PubMed ID: 24274632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Evaluation of underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses: a simulation study of Bayesian and frequentist implementations of three models.
Dohoo I; Stryhn H; Sanchez J
Prev Vet Med; 2007 Sep; 81(1-3):38-55. PubMed ID: 17477995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests must take into account the use of surrogate standards.
Kang J; Brant R; Ghali WA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):566-574.e1. PubMed ID: 23466018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Selective reporting of adjusted estimates in observational epidemiology studies: reasons and implications for meta-analyses.
Peters J; Mengersen K
Eval Health Prof; 2008 Dec; 31(4):370-89. PubMed ID: 19000980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Publication bias in research synthesis: sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.
Vevea JL; Woods CM
Psychol Methods; 2005 Dec; 10(4):428-43. PubMed ID: 16392998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
