Xiaonan Xue1, Mimi Y Kim2, Philip E Castle2, Howard D Strickler2. 1. Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Belfer 1303C, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. Electronic address: Xiaonan.xue@einstein.yu.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Belfer 1303C, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies to evaluate clinical screening tests often face the problem that the "gold standard" diagnostic approach is costly and/or invasive. It is therefore common to verify only a subset of negative screening tests using the gold standard method. However, undersampling the screen negatives can lead to substantial overestimation of the sensitivity and underestimation of the specificity of the diagnostic test. Our objective was to develop a simple and accurate statistical method to address this "verification bias." STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a weighted generalized estimating equation approach to estimate, in a single model, the accuracy (eg, sensitivity/specificity) of multiple assays and simultaneously compare results between assays while addressing verification bias. This approach can be implemented using standard statistical software. Simulations were conducted to assess the proposed method. An example is provided using a cervical cancer screening trial that compared the accuracy of human papillomavirus and Pap tests, with histologic data as the gold standard. RESULTS: The proposed approach performed well in estimating and comparing the accuracy of multiple assays in the presence of verification bias. CONCLUSION: The proposed approach is an easy to apply and accurate method for addressing verification bias in studies of multiple screening methods.
OBJECTIVES: Studies to evaluate clinical screening tests often face the problem that the "gold standard" diagnostic approach is costly and/or invasive. It is therefore common to verify only a subset of negative screening tests using the gold standard method. However, undersampling the screen negatives can lead to substantial overestimation of the sensitivity and underestimation of the specificity of the diagnostic test. Our objective was to develop a simple and accurate statistical method to address this "verification bias." STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a weighted generalized estimating equation approach to estimate, in a single model, the accuracy (eg, sensitivity/specificity) of multiple assays and simultaneously compare results between assays while addressing verification bias. This approach can be implemented using standard statistical software. Simulations were conducted to assess the proposed method. An example is provided using a cervical cancer screening trial that compared the accuracy of human papillomavirus and Pap tests, with histologic data as the gold standard. RESULTS: The proposed approach performed well in estimating and comparing the accuracy of multiple assays in the presence of verification bias. CONCLUSION: The proposed approach is an easy to apply and accurate method for addressing verification bias in studies of multiple screening methods.
Authors: Joseph Monsonego; Michael G Hudgens; Laurent Zerat; Jean-Claude Zerat; Kari Syrjänen; Philippe Halfon; Fabrice Ruiz; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Christine Clavel; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Chris J L M Meijer; Heike Hoyer; Samuel Ratnam; Anne Szarewski; Philippe Birembaut; Shalini Kulasingam; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Patti E Gravitt; Proma Paul; Hormuzd A Katki; Haripriya Vendantham; Gayatri Ramakrishna; Mrudula Sudula; Basany Kalpana; Brigitte M Ronnett; K Vijayaraghavan; Keerti V Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shalini L Kulasingam; James P Hughes; Nancy B Kiviat; Constance Mao; Noel S Weiss; Jane M Kuypers; Laura A Koutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: N Li; J-F Shi; S Franceschi; W-H Zhang; M Dai; B Liu; Y-Z Zhang; L-K Li; R-F Wu; H De Vuyst; M Plummer; Y-L Qiao; G Clifford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Cecile D Lahiri; Katherine B Dugan; Xianhong Xie; Laura Reimers; Robert D Burk; Kathryn Anastos; Leslie Stewart Massad; Isam-Eldin Eltoum; Xiaonan Xue; Gypsyamber DʼSouza; Lisa Flowers; Joel M Palefsky; Lisa Rahangdale; Howard D Strickler; Ighovwerha Ofotokun Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Leticia Torres-Ibarra; Jack Cuzick; Attila T Lorincz; Donna Spiegelman; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Eduardo L Franco; Anna Barbara Moscicki; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Cosette M Wheeler; Berenice Rivera-Paredez; Rubí Hernández-López; Leith León-Maldonado; Jorge Salmerón Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01
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
Authors: Rachael Adcock; Belinda Nedjai; Attila T Lorincz; Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska; Rawinder Banwait; Norah Torrez-Martinez; Michael Robertson; Jack Cuzick; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 7.316