Literature DB >> 16435337

Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.

Ofer Harel1, Xiao-Hua Zhou.   

Abstract

In the case in which all subjects are screened using a common test and only a subset of these subjects are tested using a golden standard test, it is well documented that there is a risk for bias, called verification bias. When the test has only two levels (e.g. positive and negative) and we are trying to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the test, we are actually constructing a confidence interval for a binomial proportion. Since it is well documented that this estimation is not trivial even with complete data, we adopt multiple imputation framework for verification bias problem. We propose several imputation procedures for this problem and compare different methods of estimation. We show that our imputation methods are better than the existing methods with regard to nominal coverage and confidence interval length. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16435337     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2494

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

Authors:  Tessa S S Genders; Adrian Coles; Udo Hoffmann; Manesh R Patel; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink; Pamela S Douglas
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-06-14

2.  A hybrid Bayesian hierarchical model combining cohort and case-control studies for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests: Accounting for partial verification bias.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ma; Yong Chen; Stephen R Cole; Haitao Chu
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Sensitivity to imputation models and assumptions in receiver operating characteristic analysis with incomplete data.

Authors:  Jale Karakaya; Erdem Karabulut; Recai M Yucel
Journal:  J Stat Comput Simul       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.424

4.  Screening for depression in the postpartum period: a comparison of three instruments.

Authors:  Barbara H Hanusa; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Roger F Haskett; Kathleen Spadaro; Katherine L Wisner
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Identifying depressed older adults in primary care: a secondary analysis of a multisite randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Corrine I Voils; Maren K Olsen; John W Williams
Journal:  Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2008

6.  A trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic studies accounting for prevalence and non-evaluable subjects: re-evaluation of the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography studies.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ma; Muhammad Fareed K Suri; Haitao Chu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard - An update.

Authors:  Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere; Kevin Wilson; Sara Graziadio; Luke Vale; A Joy Allen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

Authors:  Emily Day; David Eldred-Evans; A Toby Prevost; Hashim U Ahmed; Francesca Fiorentino
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.