Literature DB >> 17938777

Analysis of differences in proportions from clustered data with multiple measurements in diagnostic studies.

C Schwenke1, R Busse.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In diagnostic studies, proportions such as sensitivities are often to be calculated and to be compared between different diagnostic procedures. As statistical unit of analysis, multiple observational units may be assessed within each patient, i.e., multiple lesions in an organ. As a requirement, these are to be assessed by multiple blinded readers. In this paper we propose a method to cover correlations between units within patients, correlations between procedures and correlations between different raters assessing each observational unit.
METHODS: The proposed approach is a two-step method to analyze clustered data with multiple measurements to compare diagnostic procedures in a paired modality design and the correlation between the readers in a paired reader design. The performance of the approach was compared to a generalized estimation equations model (GEEs) by power simulations.
RESULTS: Power simulations suggest, that the two-step approach is not inferior to GEEs with regard to the single readers as well as with regard to the average reader.
CONCLUSIONS: An intuitive approach was developed next to established methods to analyze "paired modality, paired reader" and "unpaired modality, paired reader" studies with binary endpoints when estimating proportions and differences in proportions for clustered data with multiple measurements. This two-step approach is an alternative method to cover routine designs of diagnostic studies where the difference of proportions is to be estimated directly along with confidence intervals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17938777     DOI: 10.1160/me0433

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Inf Med        ISSN: 0026-1270            Impact factor:   2.176


  8 in total

1.  Sensitivity of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI vs X-ray Mammography Based on Cancer Histology, Tumor Grading, Receptor Status, and Molecular Subtype: A Supplemental Analysis of 2 Large Phase III Studies.

Authors:  Jan Endrikat; Gilda Schmidt; Daniel Haverstock; Olaf Weber; Zuzana Jirakova Trnkova; Jörg Barkhausen
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2022-04-19

2.  Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prospective comparison of US, CT and MR imaging.

Authors:  Michele Di Martino; Gianmaria De Filippis; Adriano De Santis; Daniel Geiger; Maurizio Del Monte; Concetta Valentina Lombardo; Massimo Rossi; Stefano Ginanni Corradini; Gianluca Mennini; Carlo Catalano
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-11-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI.

Authors:  F Pediconi; R Kubik-Huch; B Chilla; C Schwenke; K Kinkel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  High-pitch dual-source CT coronary angiography with low volumes of contrast medium.

Authors:  Alexander Lembcke; Carsten Schwenke; Patrick A Hein; Gesine Knobloch; Tahir Durmus; Bernd Hamm; Alexander Huppertz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  99mTc-besilesomab (Scintimun) in peripheral osteomyelitis: comparison with 99mTc-labelled white blood cells.

Authors:  Wolf S Richter; Velimir Ivancevic; Johannes Meller; Otto Lang; Dominique Le Guludec; István Szilvazi; Holger Amthauer; Florence Chossat; Amel Dahmane; Carsten Schwenke; Alberto Signore
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  "Number needed to read"--how to facilitate clinical trials in MR-angiography.

Authors:  M Voth; U I Attenberger; A Luckscheiter; S Haneder; T Henzler; S O Schoenberg; C Schwenke; H J Michaely
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Inflammation assessment in patients with arthritis using a novel in vivo fluorescence optical imaging technology.

Authors:  Stephanie G Werner; Hans-Eckhard Langer; Sarah Ohrndorf; Malte Bahner; Peter Schott; Carsten Schwenke; Michael Schirner; Hans Bastian; Gudrun Lind-Albrecht; Bernward Kurtz; Gerd R Burmester; Marina Backhaus
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study.

Authors:  Christoph J Zech; Carsten Schwenke; Jan Endrikat
Journal:  Magn Reson Insights       Date:  2019-02-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.