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.
2. The (in)validity of sensitivity and specificity. Guggenmoos-Holzmann I; van Houwelingen HC Stat Med; 2000 Jul; 19(13):1783-92. PubMed ID: 10861778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. On 'Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: accounting for contingency correlation'. Reiser B; Nakas CT Stat Med; 2016 Feb; 35(4):635-6. PubMed ID: 26776063 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Response to comment on 'Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: accounting for contingency correlation'. Chen F; Xue Y; Tan MT; Chen P Stat Med; 2016 Feb; 35(4):637-40. PubMed ID: 26776064 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random. Kosinski AS; Chen Y; Lyles RH Stat Med; 2011 Jan; 30(2):200. PubMed ID: 21204125 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Evidence-based emergency medicine/editorial. The problem with sensitivity and specificity.. Gallagher EJ Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Aug; 42(2):298-303. PubMed ID: 12883522 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Regarding the paper 'Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random'. Skaik YA Stat Med; 2010 Oct; 29(24):2568. PubMed ID: 20954220 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of studies of diagnostic tests. Scott IA; Greenberg PB; Poole PJ Intern Med J; 2008 Feb; 38(2):120-9. PubMed ID: 17645501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Improved confidence intervals for the sensitivity at a fixed level of specificity of a continuous-scale diagnostic test. Zhou XH; Qin G Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):465-77. PubMed ID: 15635678 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Study design for the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Daya S Semin Reprod Endocrinol; 1996 May; 14(2):101-9. PubMed ID: 8796932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate Bayesian modeling approach. Verde PE Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3088-102. PubMed ID: 21170904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: accounting for contingency correlation. Chen F; Xue Y; Tan MT; Chen P Stat Med; 2015 Apr; 34(9):1560-76. PubMed ID: 25640747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Problems in detecting misfit of latent class models in diagnostic research without a gold standard were shown. van Smeden M; Oberski DL; Reitsma JB; Vermunt JK; Moons KG; de Groot JA J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jun; 74():158-66. PubMed ID: 26628335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The quality of measurement methods and its statistical estimation]. Läärä E; Aro S Duodecim; 1988; 104(1):40-52. PubMed ID: 3409823 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Using evidence to determine diagnostic test efficacy. Replogle WH; Johnson WD; Hoover KW Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2009; 6(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 19413584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Re: Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance. Formann AK; Böhning D Biostatistics; 2008 Oct; 9(4):777-8. PubMed ID: 18718923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]