These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29279167)

  • 1. Comparing sensitivity and specificity of medical imaging tests when verification bias is present: The concept of relative diagnostic accuracy.
    Filleron T
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Jan; 98():32-35. PubMed ID: 29279167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. Verification bias an underrecognized source of error in assessing the efficacy of medical imaging.
    Petscavage JM; Richardson ML; Carr RB
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):343-6. PubMed ID: 21145764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Verification bias in pediatric studies evaluating diagnostic tests.
    Bates AS; Margolis PA; Evans AT
    J Pediatr; 1993 Apr; 122(4):585-90. PubMed ID: 8463905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard.
    Karch A; Koch A; Zapf A; Zerr I; Karch A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Oct; 78():73-82. PubMed ID: 27107877
    [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. 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]  

  • 10. An interactive web-based tool for detecting verification (work-up) bias in studies of the efficacy of diagnostic imaging.
    Richardson ML; Petscavage JM
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Dec; 17(12):1580-3. PubMed ID: 20926316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias.
    Choi BC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1992 Jun; 45(6):581-6. PubMed ID: 1607897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Estimating and comparing diagnostic tests' accuracy when the gold standard is not binary.
    Obuchowski NA
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Sep; 12(9):1198-204. PubMed ID: 16099683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic or screening test accuracy when the reference standard is imperfect.
    Walter SD; Macaskill P; Lord SJ; Irwig L
    Stat Med; 2012 May; 31(11-12):1129-38. PubMed ID: 22351623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Evaluation of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard using an Anaplasma marginale field data set].
    Müllner P; Dreher UM; Meli ML; Lutz H; Hofman-Lehmann R; Doherr MG
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2005; 118(9-10):416-22. PubMed ID: 16206931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
    Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The validity and accuracy of clinical tests used to detect labral pathology of the shoulder--a systematic review.
    Munro W; Healy R
    Man Ther; 2009 Apr; 14(2):119-30. PubMed ID: 18996735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Extending Hui-Walter framework to correlated outcomes with application to diagnosis tests of an eye disease among premature infants.
    Liu YL; Ying GS; Quinn GE; Zhou XH; Chen Y
    Stat Med; 2022 Feb; 41(3):433-448. PubMed ID: 34859902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Diagnostic Accuracy of Various Imaging Modalities for Suspected Lower Extremity Stress Fractures: A Systematic Review With Evidence-Based Recommendations for Clinical Practice.
    Wright AA; Hegedus EJ; Lenchik L; Kuhn KJ; Santiago L; Smoliga JM
    Am J Sports Med; 2016 Jan; 44(1):255-63. PubMed ID: 25805712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.