113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24831638)
1. [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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. Nonparametric estimation of ROC curves in the absence of a gold standard.
Zhou XH; Castelluccio P; Zhou C
Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):600-9. PubMed ID: 16011710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Inverse probability weighting estimation of the volume under the ROC surface in the presence of verification bias.
Zhang Y; Alonzo TA;
Biom J; 2016 Nov; 58(6):1338-1356. PubMed ID: 27338713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests.
Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
Biometrics; 2003 Mar; 59(1):163-71. PubMed ID: 12762453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Novel Internet-based tool for correcting apparent sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests to adjust for referral (verification) bias.
Danias PG; Parker JA
Radiographics; 2002; 22(2):e4. PubMed ID: 11896234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
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. Direct estimation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with verification biased data.
Hai Y; Qin G
Stat Med; 2020 Dec; 39(30):4789-4820. PubMed ID: 32944975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. bcROCsurface: an R package for correcting verification bias in estimation of the ROC surface and its volume for continuous diagnostic tests.
To Duc K
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Nov; 18(1):503. PubMed ID: 29151019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present.
Kosinski AS; Barnhart HX
Stat Med; 2003 Sep; 22(17):2711-21. PubMed ID: 12939781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Point and interval estimation of accuracies of a binary medical diagnostic test following group sequential testing.
Shu Y; Liu A; Li Z
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci; 2008 Jul; 366(1874):2335-45. PubMed ID: 18407894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests.
Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L; Franco EL
Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(17):2527-46. PubMed ID: 12205697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. DNA ploidy cytometry testing for cervical cancer screening in China (DNACIC Trial): a prospective randomized, controlled trial.
Tong H; Shen R; Wang Z; Kan Y; Wang Y; Li F; Wang F; Yang J; Guo X;
Clin Cancer Res; 2009 Oct; 15(20):6438-45. PubMed ID: 19825960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Partial Verification Bias Correction Using Inverse Probability Bootstrap Sampling for Binary Diagnostic Tests.
Arifin WN; Yusof UK
Diagnostics (Basel); 2022 Nov; 12(11):. PubMed ID: 36428900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
