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.
135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8246708)
1. Graphic representation of numerically calculated predictive values: an easily comprehended method of evaluating diagnostic tests. Daniel BL; Daniel TM Med Decis Making; 1993; 13(4):355-8. PubMed ID: 8246708 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computers in paediatrics. 18. Medical decision making: computer program to calculate sensitivity, specificity, false positive and negative rates, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of a diagnostic test. Yip WC; Tay JS; Ho TF; Wong HB J Singapore Paediatr Soc; 1986; 28(1-2):74-8. PubMed ID: 3531721 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. [ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve: principles and application in biology]. Delacour H; Servonnet A; Perrot A; Vigezzi JF; Ramirez JM Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 2005; 63(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15771972 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A new system of visual presentation of analysis of test performance: the "double-ring" diagram. Stefadouros MA J Clin Epidemiol; 1993 Oct; 46(10):1151-8. PubMed ID: 7691997 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 1. Toxicity test methods that have predictive capacity no greater than chance. Bruner LH; Carr GJ; Harbell JW; Curren RD Hum Exp Toxicol; 2002 Jun; 21(6):305-12. PubMed ID: 12195934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparing diagnostic tests: a simple graphic using likelihood ratios. Biggerstaff BJ Stat Med; 2000 Mar; 19(5):649-63. PubMed ID: 10700737 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating the performance of a screening test for depression in primary care. Sedgwick P; Joekes K BMJ; 2015 Apr; 350():h1801. PubMed ID: 25858900 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in the paired design: a straightforward graphical approach. Newcombe RG Stat Med; 2001 Mar; 20(6):907-15. PubMed ID: 11252012 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing Diagnostic Tests I: You Can't Be Too Sensitive. Jupiter DC J Foot Ankle Surg; 2015; 54(3):519-20. PubMed ID: 25797083 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of operational characteristics for binary tests with clustered data. Kwak M; Um SW; Jung SH Stat Med; 2015 Jul; 34(15):2325-33. PubMed ID: 25801180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Diagnostic testing, pre- and post-test probabilities, and their use in clinical practice. Paulo S; Mendes S; Vizinho R; Carneiro AV Rev Port Cardiol; 2004 Sep; 23(9):1187-98. PubMed ID: 15587576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Can we climb out of the "pit" of poorly performing rapid diagnostic tests for chlamydia? Gaydos CA Sex Transm Infect; 2009 Jun; 85(3):158. PubMed ID: 19478102 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Probability graphics support for medical reasoning. Williams BT; Yoder JW; Littell E Methods Inf Med; 1993 Apr; 32(3):229-32. PubMed ID: 8341156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Tuberculin skin test: estimation of positive and negative predictive values from routine data. Berkel GM; Cobelens FG; de Vries G; Draayer-Jansen IW; Borgdorff MW Int J Tuberc Lung Dis; 2005 Mar; 9(3):310-6. PubMed ID: 15786896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Information graphs for epidemiological applications of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Hughes G Methods Inf Med; 2014; 53(1):IV-VI. PubMed ID: 24407730 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]