114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24831638)
21. Bayesian clinical reasoning: does intuitive estimation of likelihood ratios on an ordinal scale outperform estimation of sensitivities and specificities?
Moreira J; Bisoffi Z; Narváez A; Van den Ende J
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):934-40. PubMed ID: 19018928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Comparative evaluation of human papilloma virus-DNA test verses colposcopy as secondary cervical cancer screening test to triage screen positive women on primary screening by visual inspection with 5% acetic acid.
Pimple S; Shastri SS
Indian J Cancer; 2014; 51(2):117-23. PubMed ID: 25104191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Approximate confidence intervals for the likelihood ratios of a binary diagnostic test in the presence of partial disease verification.
Montero-Alonso MA; Roldán-Nofuentes JA
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):56-81. PubMed ID: 29584541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. True verification probabilities should not be used in estimating the area under receiver operating characteristic curve.
Wu Y
Stat Med; 2020 Nov; 39(27):3937-3946. PubMed ID: 32725910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Glaucoma diagnostics.
Geimer SA
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [An optoelectronic cervical cancer screening system for screening cervical cancer: comparison with cervical cytology].
He XK; Luo XP; Mao LZ; Chen GY; Li Y; Zhang JY
Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2010 Oct; 30(10):2304-6. PubMed ID: 20965832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Pharmacoepidemiologic Research.
Pang M; Schuster T; Filion KB; Eberg M; Platt RW
Epidemiology; 2016 Jul; 27(4):570-7. PubMed ID: 27031037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Bayesian estimation of intervention effect with pre- and post-misclassified binomial data.
Stamey JD; Seaman JW; Young DM
J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(1):93-108. PubMed ID: 17219757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The diagnostic utility of multiple-level likelihood ratios.
Bowden SC; Loring DW
J Int Neuropsychol Soc; 2009 Sep; 15(5):769-76. PubMed ID: 19635177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparing Rasch analyses probability estimates to sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios when examining the utility of medical diagnostic tests.
Cipriani D; Fox C; Khuder S; Boudreau N
J Appl Meas; 2005; 6(2):180-201. PubMed ID: 15795486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Bayesian Estimation of Combined Accuracy for Tests with Verification Bias.
Broemeling LD
Diagnostics (Basel); 2011 Dec; 1(1):53-76. PubMed ID: 26859487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A robust method using propensity score stratification for correcting verification bias for binary tests.
He H; McDermott MP
Biostatistics; 2012 Jan; 13(1):32-47. PubMed ID: 21856650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Covariate adjustment of cumulative incidence functions for competing risks data using inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Neumann A; Billionnet C
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2016 Jun; 129():63-70. PubMed ID: 27084321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy.
Zhou XH
Stat Methods Med Res; 1998 Dec; 7(4):337-53. PubMed ID: 9871951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Estimating the agreement and diagnostic accuracy of two diagnostic tests when one test is conducted on only a subsample of specimens.
Katki HA; Li Y; Edelstein DW; Castle PE
Stat Med; 2012 Feb; 31(5):436-48. PubMed ID: 22139832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Effect of verification bias on positive and negative predictive values.
Zhou XH
Stat Med; 1994 Sep; 13(17):1737-45. PubMed ID: 7997707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. On Inverse Probability Weighting for Nonmonotone Missing at Random Data.
Sun B; Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ
J Am Stat Assoc; 2018; 113(521):369-379. PubMed ID: 30034062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
