Literature DB >> 19101935

Estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard.

Paul S Albert1.   

Abstract

The goal in diagnostic medicine is often to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of multiple experimental tests relative to a gold standard reference. When a gold standard reference is not available, investigators commonly use an imperfect reference standard. This paper proposes methodology for estimating the diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard when information about the diagnostic accuracy of the imperfect test is available from external data sources. We propose alternative joint models for characterizing the dependence between the experimental tests and discuss the use of these models for estimating individual-test sensitivity and specificity as well as prevalence and multivariate post-test probabilities (predictive values). We show using analytical and simulation techniques that, as long as the sensitivity and specificity of the imperfect test are high, inferences on diagnostic accuracy are robust to misspecification of the joint model. The methodology is demonstrated with a study examining the diagnostic accuracy of various HIV-antibody tests for HIV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19101935      PMCID: PMC2754820          DOI: 10.1002/sim.3514

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


  30 in total

1.  Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test.

Authors:  T A Alonzo; M S Pepe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Frank E Harrell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Insights into latent class analysis of diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Holly Janes
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2006-11-03       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 4.  Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards.

Authors:  P N Valenstein
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  On Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy From Studies With Multiple Raters and Partial Gold Standard Evaluation.

Authors:  Paul S Albert; Lori E Dodd
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 6.  Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards.

Authors:  S L Hui; X H Zhou
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 7.  The discrepancy in discrepant analysis.

Authors:  A Hadgu
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Y Qu; M Tan; M H Kutner
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  C B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example.

Authors:  K G Moons; G A van Es; J W Deckers; J D Habbema; D E Grobbee
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.822

View more
  10 in total

1.  Simultaneous inference of a misclassified outcome and competing risks failure time data.

Authors:  Sheng Luo; Xiao Su; Min Yi; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.404

2.  On the estimation of disease prevalence by latent class models for screening studies using two screening tests with categorical disease status verified in test positives only.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Yijie Zhou; Stephen R Cole; Joseph G Ibrahim
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Estimating diagnostic accuracy of raters without a gold standard by exploiting a group of experts.

Authors:  Bo Zhang; Zhen Chen; Paul S Albert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 4.  Estimation of diagnostic test accuracy without full verification: a review of latent class methods.

Authors:  John Collins; Minh Huynh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Thiopurine S-methyltransferase testing for averting drug toxicity: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  R M Zur; L M Roy; S Ito; J Beyene; C Carew; W J Ungar
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.550

6.  Bayesian imperfect information analysis for clinical recurrent data.

Authors:  Chih-Kuang Chang; Chi-Chang Chang
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 2.423

7.  Different latent class models were used and evaluated for assessing the accuracy of campylobacter diagnostic tests: overcoming imperfect reference standards?

Authors:  J Asselineau; A Paye; E Bessède; P Perez; C Proust-Lima
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 2.451

8.  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

9.  Application of latent class analysis in diagnosis of graft-versus-host disease by serum markers after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Maedeh Amini; Anoshirvan Kazemnejad; Aliakbar Rasekhi; Farid Zayeri; Abbas Hajifathali; Farzaneh Tavakoli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Accuracy of p53 codon 72 polymorphism status determined by multiple laboratory methods: a latent class model analysis.

Authors:  Stephen D Walter; Corinne A Riddell; Tatiana Rabachini; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.