158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9393377)
1. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.
Chock C; Irwig L; Berry G; Glasziou P
J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1211-7. PubMed ID: 9393377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards.
Hui SL; Zhou XH
Stat Methods Med Res; 1998 Dec; 7(4):354-70. PubMed ID: 9871952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Analytic methods for comparing two dichotomous screening or diagnostic tests applied to two populations of differing disease prevalence when individuals negative on both tests are unverified.
Berry G; Smith CL; Macaskill P; Irwig L
Stat Med; 2002 Mar; 21(6):853-62. PubMed ID: 11870821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
Håkonsen SJ; Pedersen PU; Bath-Hextall F; Kirkpatrick P
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 May; 13(4):141-87. PubMed ID: 26447079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [Roaming through methodology. XXXII. False test results].
van der Weijden T; van den Akker M
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 May; 145(19):906-8. PubMed ID: 11387865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reflections on accuracy.
Gambino B
J Gambl Stud; 2006 Dec; 22(4):393-404. PubMed ID: 17096201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diagnostic accuracy of fourth-generation ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay and utility of signal-to-cutoff ratio to predict false-positive HIV tests in pregnancy.
Adhikari EH; Macias D; Gaffney D; White S; Rogers VL; McIntire DD; Roberts SW
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Oct; 219(4):408.e1-408.e9. PubMed ID: 29913173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Estimating the conditional false-positive rate for semi-latent data.
van der Merwe L; Maritz JS
Epidemiology; 2002 Jul; 13(4):424-30. PubMed ID: 12094097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Farnsworth A; Wright RG; McCool J; Barratt A; Simpson JM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Jan; 57(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 15019013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.
Houssami N; Macaskill P; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jul; 50(10):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 24746887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validity and coverage of estimates of relative accuracy.
Cheng H; Macaluso M; Hardin JM
Ann Epidemiol; 2000 May; 10(4):251-60. PubMed ID: 10854959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative Test Evaluation: Methods and Challenges.
Gambino B
J Gambl Stud; 2018 Dec; 34(4):1109-1138. PubMed ID: 29368061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values: diagnosing purple mange.
Collier J; Huebscher R
J Am Acad Nurse Pract; 2010 Apr; 22(4):205-9. PubMed ID: 20409258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing diagnostic tests on benefit-risk.
Pennello G; Pantoja-Galicia N; Evans S
J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(6):1083-1097. PubMed ID: 27548805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Adjusting for differential-verification bias in diagnostic-accuracy studies: a Bayesian approach.
de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
Epidemiology; 2011 Mar; 22(2):234-41. PubMed ID: 21228702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard.
Joseph L; Gyorkos TW; Coupal L
Am J Epidemiol; 1995 Feb; 141(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 7840100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Relevance of cutoff on a 4th generation ELISA performance in the false positive rate during HIV diagnostic in a low HIV prevalence setting.
Chacón L; Mateos ML; Holguín Á
J Clin Virol; 2017 Jul; 92():11-13. PubMed ID: 28501753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
