400 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8870764)
1. Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity.
Buderer NM
Acad Emerg Med; 1996 Sep; 3(9):895-900. PubMed ID: 8870764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies.
Flahault A; Cadilhac M; Thomas G
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):859-62. PubMed ID: 16018921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The design of multi-stage tuberculin surveys: some suggestions for sampling.
Nagelkerke NJ; Borgdorff MW; Kalisvaart NA; Broekmans JF
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis; 2000 Apr; 4(4):314-20. PubMed ID: 10777079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Incorporating the sampling variation of the disease prevalence when calculating the sample size in a study to determine the diagnostic accuracy of a test.
Yi Q; Panzarella T; Corey P
Control Clin Trials; 2004 Aug; 25(4):417-27. PubMed ID: 15296816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example.
Eliasziw M; Young SL; Woodbury MG; Fryday-Field K
Phys Ther; 1994 Aug; 74(8):777-88. PubMed ID: 8047565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reliability of nutritional screening and assessment tools.
Jones JM
Nutrition; 2004 Mar; 20(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 14990273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How many patients are necessary to assess test performance?
Arkin CF; Wachtel MS
JAMA; 1990 Jan; 263(2):275-8. PubMed ID: 2403604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. What the clinician really needs to know: questioning the clinical usefulness of sensitivity and specificity in studies of screening tests.
Camp BW
J Dev Behav Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 27(3):226-30. PubMed ID: 16775521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of inferential procedures for adaptive clinical trial designs with pre-specified rules for modifying the sample size.
Levin GP; Emerson SC; Emerson SS
Biometrics; 2014 Sep; 70(3):556-67. PubMed ID: 24766094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sample sizes and precision of estimates of sensitivity and specificity from primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools: a survey of recently published studies.
Thombs BD; Rice DB
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res; 2016 Jun; 25(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 27060912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prevalence estimation subject to misclassification: the mis-substitution bias and some remedies.
Zhang Z; Liu C; Kim S; Liu A
Stat Med; 2014 Nov; 33(25):4482-500. PubMed ID: 25043925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Three principles to define the success of a diagnostic study could be identified.
Vach W; Gerke O; Høilund-Carlsen PF
J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Mar; 65(3):293-300. PubMed ID: 21995974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests.
Irwig L; Glasziou PP; Berry G; Chock C; Mock P; Simpson JM
Am J Epidemiol; 1994 Oct; 140(8):759-69. PubMed ID: 7942777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics.
Hajian-Tilaki K
J Biomed Inform; 2014 Apr; 48():193-204. PubMed ID: 24582925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Using samples to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of a surveillance process.
McBryde ES; Kelly H; Marshall C; Russo PL; McElwain DL; Pettitt AN
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 29(6):559-63. PubMed ID: 18510466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
Ioannidis JP
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):951-7. PubMed ID: 19018930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimating the prevalence of drug use from self-reports in a cohort for which biologic data are available for a subsample.
Poole WK; Flynn PM; Rao AV; Cooley PC
Am J Epidemiol; 1996 Aug; 144(4):413-20. PubMed ID: 8712199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An internal pilot design for prospective cancer screening trials with unknown disease prevalence.
Brinton JT; Ringham BM; Glueck DH
Trials; 2015 Oct; 16():458. PubMed ID: 26463684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists.
Nakagawa S; Cuthill IC
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2007 Nov; 82(4):591-605. PubMed ID: 17944619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
