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.
94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29279167)
21. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. Reid MC; Lachs MS; Feinstein AR JAMA; 1995 Aug 23-30; 274(8):645-51. PubMed ID: 7637146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Correcting for partial verification bias in diagnostic accuracy studies: A tutorial using R. Arifin WN; Yusof UK Stat Med; 2022 Apr; 41(9):1709-1727. PubMed ID: 35043447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Bias due to composite reference standards in diagnostic accuracy studies. Schiller I; van Smeden M; Hadgu A; Libman M; Reitsma JB; Dendukuri N Stat Med; 2016 Apr; 35(9):1454-70. PubMed ID: 26555849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right. Miller WC J Clin Epidemiol; 1998 Mar; 51(3):219-31. PubMed ID: 9495687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Methodology of a scientific study: from the formulation of the problem to the interpretation of the results--applications to radiology]. Bertrand P Sante; 1996; 6(3):139-44. PubMed ID: 8764446 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparing two medical tests when results of reference standard are unavailable for those negative via both tests. Kondratovich MV J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(1):145-66. PubMed ID: 18161546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. [Reference standards in diagnostic research: problems and solutions]. de Groot JA; Reitsma JB; Moons K Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2014; 159():A7202. PubMed ID: 25589276 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [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]
31. Comparing accuracy in an unpaired post-market device study with incomplete disease assessment. Alonzo TA Biom J; 2009 Jun; 51(3):491-503. PubMed ID: 19572317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Imputation approaches for estimating diagnostic accuracy for multiple tests from partially verified designs. Albert PS Biometrics; 2007 Sep; 63(3):947-57. PubMed ID: 17825024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Verification and classification bias interactions in diagnostic test accuracy studies for fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Schmidt RL; Walker BS; Cohen MB Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Mar; 123(3):193-201. PubMed ID: 25521425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography for diagnosis of suspected lung cancer: impact of verification bias. Lauer MS; Murthy SC; Blackstone EH; Okereke IC; Rice TW Arch Intern Med; 2007 Jan; 167(2):161-5. PubMed ID: 17242317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Understanding the direction of bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Kohn MA; Carpenter CR; Newman TB Acad Emerg Med; 2013 Nov; 20(11):1194-206. PubMed ID: 24238322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The "perfect" reader study. Gennaro G Eur J Radiol; 2018 Jun; 103():139-146. PubMed ID: 29653758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]