123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9550567)
21. 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]
22. [Quantitative evaluation of reproducibility of clinical laboratory data day by day].
Balakhovskiĭ IS
Klin Lab Diagn; 2003 Mar; (3):50-4. PubMed ID: 12715399
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Method comparison in the clinical laboratory.
Jensen AL; Kjelgaard-Hansen M
Vet Clin Pathol; 2006 Sep; 35(3):276-86. PubMed ID: 16967409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Critical appraisal of evidence on diagnostic tests].
Furukawa T
Rinsho Byori; 2003 Jan; 51(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 12652687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Dual composite reference standards (dCRS) in molecular diagnostic research: A new approach to reduce bias in the presence of Imperfect reference.
Tang S; Hemyari P; Canchola JA; Duncan J
J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(5):951-965. PubMed ID: 29355450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The agreement between two diagnostic methods in binary cases: a proposal.
Renzo JC
Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2002; 62(5):391-8. PubMed ID: 12387586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Reference standards in diagnostic research: problems and solutions].
de Groot JA; Reitsma JB; Moons K
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2014; 159():A7202. PubMed ID: 25589276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Subject-based reference values.
Solberg HE
Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl; 1995; 222():7-10. PubMed ID: 7569749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Statistical approaches to evaluate agreement].
Carrasco JL; Jover L
Med Clin (Barc); 2004; 122 Suppl 1():28-34. PubMed ID: 14980157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effects of bias on the results of diagnostic studies of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Boyer K; Wies J; Turkelson CM
J Hand Surg Am; 2009; 34(6):1006-13. PubMed ID: 19446966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Evaluation of informative value of laboratory tests and test complexes for the occupational diseases].
Pavlovskaia NA; Danilova NI
Klin Lab Diagn; 2001 Dec; (12):49-51. PubMed ID: 11840833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluation of maximum likelihood procedures to estimate left censored observations.
Jain RB; Caudill SP; Wang RY; Monsell E
Anal Chem; 2008 Feb; 80(4):1124-32. PubMed ID: 18197633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A practical guide to validation and verification of analytical methods in the clinical laboratory.
Pum J
Adv Clin Chem; 2019; 90():215-281. PubMed ID: 31122610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Internal quality control: planning and implementation strategies.
Westgard JO
Ann Clin Biochem; 2003 Nov; 40(Pt 6):593-611. PubMed ID: 14629798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evidence of reference standard related bias in studies of plain radiograph reading performance: a meta-regression.
Brealey SD; Scally AJ; Hahn S; Godfrey C
Br J Radiol; 2007 Jun; 80(954):406-13. PubMed ID: 17151064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Discrepant analysis--or behaviour?
Hilden J
Lancet; 1997 Sep; 350(9082):902. PubMed ID: 9314866
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Adjusting for partial verification or workup bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies.
de Groot JA; Dendukuri N; Janssen KJ; Reitsma JB; Brophy J; Joseph L; Bossuyt PM; Moons KG
Am J Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 175(8):847-53. PubMed ID: 22422923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Convergence of techniques for the evaluation of discrepant data.
MacMahon D; Pearce A; Harris P
Appl Radiat Isot; 2004; 60(2-4):275-81. PubMed ID: 14987654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. [Evaluation of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard using an Anaplasma marginale field data set].
Müllner P; Dreher UM; Meli ML; Lutz H; Hofman-Lehmann R; Doherr MG
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2005; 118(9-10):416-22. PubMed ID: 16206931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
