123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9550567)
1. Quantifying the bias associated with use of discrepant analysis.
Lipman HB; Astles JR
Clin Chem; 1998 Jan; 44(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 9550567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right.
Miller WC
J Clin Epidemiol; 1998 Mar; 51(3):219-31. PubMed ID: 9495687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The discrepancy in discrepant analysis.
Hadgu A
Lancet; 1996 Aug; 348(9027):592-3. PubMed ID: 8774575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions.
Leeflang MM; Moons KG; Reitsma JB; Zwinderman AH
Clin Chem; 2008 Apr; 54(4):729-37. PubMed ID: 18258670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Discordance rate, a new concept for combining diagnostic decisions with analytical performance characteristics. 1. Application in method or sample system comparisons and in defining decision limits.
Haeckel R; Wosniok W; Puentmann I
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2003 Mar; 41(3):347-55. PubMed ID: 12705345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Discrepant analysis is an inappropriate and unscientific method.
Hadgu A
J Clin Microbiol; 2000 Nov; 38(11):4301-2. PubMed ID: 11142698
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The discordance rate, a new concept for combining diagnostic decisions with analytical performance characteristics. 2. Defining analytical goals applied to the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes by blood glucose concentrations.
Haeckel R; Wosniok W
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2004 Feb; 42(2):198-203. PubMed ID: 15061361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bias in analytical chemistry: A review of selected procedures for incorporating uncorrected bias into the expanded uncertainty of analytical measurements and a graphical method for evaluating the concordance of reference and test procedures.
Frenkel R; Farrance I; Badrick T
Clin Chim Acta; 2019 Aug; 495():129-138. PubMed ID: 30935874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Glasziou P; Fahey M
J Clin Epidemiol; 1995 Jan; 48(1):119-30; discussion 131-2. PubMed ID: 7853038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can we do better than discrepant analysis for new diagnostic test evaluation?
Miller WC
Clin Infect Dis; 1998 Nov; 27(5):1186-93. PubMed ID: 9827267
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of several point-of-care testing (POCT) glucometers with an established laboratory procedure for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes using the discordance rate. A new statistical approach.
Püntmann I; Wosniok W; Haeckel R
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2003 Jun; 41(6):809-20. PubMed ID: 12880146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. IFCC Working Group Recommendations for Assessing Commutability Part 2: Using the Difference in Bias between a Reference Material and Clinical Samples.
Nilsson G; Budd JR; Greenberg N; Delatour V; Rej R; Panteghini M; Ceriotti F; Schimmel H; Weykamp C; Keller T; Camara JE; Burns C; Vesper HW; MacKenzie F; Miller WG;
Clin Chem; 2018 Mar; 64(3):455-464. PubMed ID: 29348165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Setting performance goals and evaluating total analytical error for diagnostic assays.
Krouwer JS
Clin Chem; 2002 Jun; 48(6 Pt 1):919-27. PubMed ID: 12029009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validity of linear regression in method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data?
Stöckl D; Dewitte K; Thienpont LM
Clin Chem; 1998 Nov; 44(11):2340-6. PubMed ID: 9799762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative evaluation of the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay and the Bio-Rad Multispot HIV-1/2 Rapid Test as an alternative differentiation assay for CLSI M53 algorithm-I.
Malloch L; Kadivar K; Putz J; Levett PN; Tang J; Hatchette TF; Kadkhoda K; Ng D; Ho J; Kim J
J Clin Virol; 2013 Dec; 58 Suppl 1():e85-91. PubMed ID: 24342484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Strength of the signal, analytical variability, and predictive value of test results.
Malvano R; Chiecchio A; Ferdeghini M
Clin Chem; 1993 Apr; 39(4):697-8. PubMed ID: 8472374
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Statistics in the pathology laboratory: diagnostic test interpretation.
Empson MB
Pathology; 2002 Aug; 34(4):365-9. PubMed ID: 12190297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The interpretation of diagnostic tests.
Shapiro DE
Stat Methods Med Res; 1999 Jun; 8(2):113-34. PubMed ID: 10501649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Discrepant analysis and screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
Schachter J; Stamm WE; Quinn TC
Lancet; 1998 Jan; 351(9097):217-8. PubMed ID: 9449898
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
