98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24447592)
1. Estimating a test's accuracy using tailored meta-analysis-How setting-specific data may aid study selection.
Willis BH; Hyde CJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 May; 67(5):538-46. PubMed ID: 24447592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. What is the test's accuracy in my practice population? Tailored meta-analysis provides a plausible estimate.
Willis BH; Hyde CJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Aug; 68(8):847-54. PubMed ID: 25479685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tailored meta-analysis: an investigation of the correlation between the test positive rate and prevalence.
Willis BH; Coomar D; Baragilly M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():1-9. PubMed ID: 30278213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparing outcomes from tailored meta-analysis with outcomes from a setting specific test accuracy study using routine data of faecal calprotectin testing for inflammatory bowel disease.
Freeman K; Willis BH; Ryan R; Taylor-Phillips S; Clarke A
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jul; 22(1):192. PubMed ID: 35820893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards.
Walter SD; Irwig L; Glasziou PP
J Clin Epidemiol; 1999 Oct; 52(10):943-51. PubMed ID: 10513757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.
Nanda K; McCrory DC; Myers ER; Bastian LA; Hasselblad V; Hickey JD; Matchar DB
Ann Intern Med; 2000 May; 132(10):810-9. PubMed ID: 10819705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. On estimating a constrained bivariate random effects model for meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.
Baragilly M; Willis BH
Stat Methods Med Res; 2022 Feb; 31(2):287-299. PubMed ID: 34994667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis.
Karnon J; Peters J; Platt J; Chilcott J; McGoogan E; Brewer N
Health Technol Assess; 2004 May; 8(20):iii, 1-78. PubMed ID: 15147611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bayesian meta-analysis of Papanicolaou smear accuracy.
Cong X; Cox DD; Cantor SB
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Oct; 107(1 Suppl 1):S133-7. PubMed ID: 17908587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography imaging in detecting and managing recurrent cervical cancer: systematic review of evidence, elicitation of subjective probabilities and economic modelling.
Meads C; Auguste P; Davenport C; Małysiak S; Sundar S; Kowalska M; Zapalska A; Guest P; Thangaratinam S; Martin-Hirsch P; Borowiack E; Barton P; Roberts T; Khan K
Health Technol Assess; 2013 Mar; 17(12):1-323. PubMed ID: 23537558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of a self-administered tampon ThinPrep test with conventional pap smears for cervical cytology.
Budge M; Halford J; Haran M; Mein J; Wright G
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Jun; 45(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 15904447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A methodological framework to distinguish spectrum effects from spectrum biases and to assess diagnostic and screening test accuracy for patient populations: application to the Papanicolaou cervical cancer smear test.
Elie C; Coste J;
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Feb; 8():7. PubMed ID: 18291032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Bayesian approach to toxicological testing.
Felli JC; Leishman DJ
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2020 Sep; 105():106898. PubMed ID: 32735877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy.
Fahey MT; Irwig L; Macaskill P
Am J Epidemiol; 1995 Apr; 141(7):680-9. PubMed ID: 7702044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The role of Pap test screening against cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Meggiolaro A; Unim B; Semyonov L; Miccoli S; Maffongelli E; La Torre G
Clin Ter; 2016; 167(4):124-39. PubMed ID: 27598026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions.
Nieuwenhuis LL; Hermans FJ; Bij de Vaate AJM; Leeflang MM; Brölmann HA; Hehenkamp WJ; Mol BWJ; Clark TJ; Huirne JA
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2017 May; 5(5):CD011126. PubMed ID: 28472862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A mobile unit: an effective service for cervical cancer screening among rural Thai women.
Swaddiwudhipong W; Chaovakiratipong C; Nguntra P; Mahasakpan P; Tatip Y; Boonmak C
Int J Epidemiol; 1999 Feb; 28(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 10195661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology as screening tools in low-resource settings in Latin America: experience of the Latin American screening study.
Longatto-Filho A; Maeda MY; Erzen M; Branca M; Roteli-Martins C; Naud P; Derchain SF; Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Sarian LO; Lima TP; Tatti S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(5):500-6. PubMed ID: 16334026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Medina-Lara A; Grigore B; Lewis R; Peters J; Price S; Landa P; Robinson S; Neal R; Hamilton W; Spencer AE
Health Technol Assess; 2020 Nov; 24(66):1-332. PubMed ID: 33252328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
