123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24332397)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. [Implication of inverse-probability weighting method in the evaluation of diagnostic test with verification bias].
Kang L; Zhang S; Zhao F; Qiao Y
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2014 Mar; 35(3):329-32. PubMed ID: 24831638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Statistical methods to correct for verification bias in diagnostic studies are inadequate when there are few false negatives: a simulation study.
Cronin AM; Vickers AJ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Nov; 8():75. PubMed ID: 19014457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.
Day E; Eldred-Evans D; Prevost AT; Ahmed HU; Fiorentino F
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Mar; 22(1):70. PubMed ID: 35300611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: the FASE study.
Monsonego J; Hudgens MG; Zerat L; Zerat JC; Syrjänen K; Halfon P; Ruiz F; Smith JS
Int J Cancer; 2011 Aug; 129(3):691-701. PubMed ID: 20941740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Weighted generalized score test for comparing predictive values in the presence of verification bias.
Wu Y
Stat Med; 2022 Oct; 41(24):4838-4859. PubMed ID: 35929435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Minimizing verification bias in cervical cancer screening of HIV-infected women.
Bateman AC; Chibwesha CJ; Parham GP
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2015 Mar; 128(3):269-70. PubMed ID: 25467910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, and digital cervicography as cervical screening strategies.
Khodakarami N; Farzaneh F; Aslani F; Alizadeh K
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2011 Nov; 284(5):1247-52. PubMed ID: 21188404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A novel metric that quantifies risk stratification for evaluating diagnostic tests: The example of evaluating cervical-cancer screening tests across populations.
Katki HA; Schiffman M
Prev Med; 2018 May; 110():100-105. PubMed ID: 29454079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Which high-risk HPV assays fulfil criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening?
Arbyn M; Snijders PJ; Meijer CJ; Berkhof J; Cuschieri K; Kocjan BJ; Poljak M
Clin Microbiol Infect; 2015 Sep; 21(9):817-26. PubMed ID: 25936581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative Study of Smart Scope® Visual Screening Test with Naked Eye Visual Screening and Pap Test.
Rahatgaonkar V; Uchale P; Oka G
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2020 Dec; 21(12):3509-3515. PubMed ID: 33369446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Random effects modeling approaches for estimating ROC curves from repeated ordinal tests without a gold standard.
Albert PS
Biometrics; 2007 Jun; 63(2):593-602. PubMed ID: 17688512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
