87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9888282)
1. Estimation of test sensitivity and specificity when disease confirmation is limited to positive results.
Walter SD
Epidemiology; 1999 Jan; 10(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 9888282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. On the interpretation of test sensitivity in the two-test two-population problem: assumptions matter.
Johnson WO; Gardner IA; Metoyer CN; Branscum AJ
Prev Vet Med; 2009 Oct; 91(2-4):116-21. PubMed ID: 19651450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies.
Li J; Fine J
Stat Med; 2004 Aug; 23(16):2537-50. PubMed ID: 15287083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard.
Toft N; Jørgensen E; Højsgaard S
Prev Vet Med; 2005 Apr; 68(1):19-33. PubMed ID: 15795013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A refined symptom-based approach to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis in children.
Marais BJ; Gie RP; Hesseling AC; Schaaf HS; Lombard C; Enarson DA; Beyers N
Pediatrics; 2006 Nov; 118(5):e1350-9. PubMed ID: 17079536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Bayesian sample size for diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard: Comparing identifiable with non-identifiable models.
Dendukuri N; Bélisle P; Joseph L
Stat Med; 2010 Nov; 29(26):2688-97. PubMed ID: 20803558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening clinical breast examination: how often does it miss lethal breast cancer?
Fenton JJ; Barton MB; Geiger AM; Herrinton LJ; Rolnick SJ; Harris EL; Barlow WE; Reisch LM; Fletcher SW; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2005; (35):67-71. PubMed ID: 16287888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Empirical Bayes screening of many p-values with applications to microarray studies.
Datta S; Datta S
Bioinformatics; 2005 May; 21(9):1987-94. PubMed ID: 15691856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. McNemar chi2 test revisited: comparing sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic examinations.
Trajman A; Luiz RR
Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2008; 68(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 18224558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance.
Pepe MS; Janes H
Biostatistics; 2007 Apr; 8(2):474-84. PubMed ID: 17085745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A sequential design to estimate sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic or screening test.
Wruck LM; Yiannoutsos CT; Hughes MD
Stat Med; 2006 Oct; 25(20):3458-73. PubMed ID: 16374904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Bayesian sample size determination for prevalence and diagnostic test studies in the absence of a gold standard test.
Dendukuri N; Rahme E; Bélisle P; Joseph L
Biometrics; 2004 Jun; 60(2):388-97. PubMed ID: 15180664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. The utility of prior information and stratification for parameter estimation with two screening tests but no gold standard.
Gustafson P
Stat Med; 2005 Apr; 24(8):1203-17. PubMed ID: 15558709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening sensitivity using questionnaire data on time since previous screening.
Weedon-Fekjaer H; Lindqvist BH; Vatten LJ; Aalen OO; Tretli S
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 18573776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Small sample estimation of relative accuracy for binary screening tests.
Alonzo TA; Braun TM; Moskowitz CS
Stat Med; 2004 Jan; 23(1):21-34. PubMed ID: 14695637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Performance of systematic and non-systematic ('opportunistic') screening mammography: a comparative study from Denmark.
Bihrmann K; Jensen A; Olsen AH; Njor S; Schwartz W; Vejborg I; Lynge E
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 18416951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
