97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7816963)
1. [Estimation by the Hui and Walter method of the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test in the absence of a reference test: results of a simulation study].
Bertrand P; Benichou J; Chastang C
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1994; 42(6):502-11. PubMed ID: 7816963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating Diagnostic Tests With Near-Perfect Specificity: Use of a Hui-Walter Approach When Designing a Trial of a DIVA Test for Bovine Tuberculosis.
Rydevik G; Innocent GT; McKendrick IJ
Front Vet Sci; 2018; 5():192. PubMed ID: 30159319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard.
Toft N; Jørgensen E; Højsgaard S
Prev Vet Med; 2005 Apr; 68(1):19-33. PubMed ID: 15795013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Estimation of infection prevalence and sensitivity in a stratified two-stage sampling design employing highly specific diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard.
Miller E; Huppert A; Novikov I; Warburg A; Hailu A; Abbasi I; Freedman LS
Stat Med; 2015 Nov; 34(25):3349-61. PubMed ID: 26033190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of screening tests without a gold standard-A pragmatic approach with virtual reference testing.
Hahn A; Schwarz NG; Frickmann H
Acta Trop; 2019 Nov; 199():105118. PubMed ID: 31369728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Sample size determination for estimation of the accuracy of two conditionally independent tests in the absence of a gold standard.
Georgiadis MP; Johnson WO; Gardner IA
Prev Vet Med; 2005 Sep; 71(1-2):1-10. PubMed ID: 16076507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Forcing dichotomous disease classification from reference standards leads to bias in diagnostic accuracy estimates: A simulation study.
Jenniskens K; Naaktgeboren CA; Reitsma JB; Hooft L; Moons KGM; van Smeden M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Jul; 111():1-10. PubMed ID: 30904568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg's formula.
Springate SD
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr; 34(2):158-63. PubMed ID: 21447784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hui and Walter's latent-class reference-free approach may be more useful in assessing agreement than diagnostic performance.
Bertrand P; Bénichou J; Grenier P; Chastang C
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Jul; 58(7):688-700. PubMed ID: 15939220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Diagnostic test accuracy and prevalence inferences based on joint and sequential testing with finite population sampling.
Su CL; Gardner IA; Johnson WO
Stat Med; 2004 Jul; 23(14):2237-55. PubMed ID: 15236428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests must take into account the use of surrogate standards.
Kang J; Brant R; Ghali WA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):566-574.e1. PubMed ID: 23466018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Glaucoma diagnostics.
Geimer SA
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Bayesian sample size determination for prevalence and diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard test.
Dendukuri N; Rahme E; Bélisle P; Joseph L
Biometrics; 2004 Jun; 60(2):388-97. PubMed ID: 15180664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
