Literature DB >> 24332397

A new method to address verification bias in studies of clinical screening tests: cervical cancer screening assays as an example.

Xiaonan Xue1, Mimi Y Kim2, Philip E Castle2, Howard D Strickler2.   

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.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical screening tests; Positive and negative predictive values; Sensitivity; Specificity; Verification bias; Weighted generalized estimating equations

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24332397      PMCID: PMC3946800          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  32 in total

1.  Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate.

Authors:  A Y Toledano; C Gatsonis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Performance of weighted estimating equations for longitudinal binary data with drop-outs missing at random.

Authors:  John S Preisser; Kurt K Lohman; Paul J Rathouz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy when disease prevalence is low.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.

Authors:  Todd A Alonzo
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

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

6.  Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: the FASE study.

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

7.  Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening.

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

8.  Effectiveness of VIA, Pap, and HPV DNA testing in a cervical cancer screening program in a peri-urban community in Andhra Pradesh, India.

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

9.  Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral.

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

10.  Different cervical cancer screening approaches in a Chinese multicentre study.

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

View more
  8 in total

1.  Methods to improve the noninvasive diagnosis and assessment of disease severity in children with suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): Study design.

Authors:  Bryan Rudolph; Nicole Bjorklund; Nadia Ovchinsky; Debora Kogan-Liberman; Adriana Perez; Mark Liszewski; Terry L Levin; Michelle Ewart; Qiang Liu; Xiaonan Xue; Shankar Viswanathan; Howard D Strickler
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 2.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

Authors:  David Garner
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-10

3.  Validation of Peek Acuity application in pediatric screening programs in Paraguay.

Authors:  Bryce de Venecia; Yasmin Bradfield; Ralph Møller Trane; Alicia Bareiro; Miguel Scalamogna
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Oral Lopinavir Use and Human Papillomavirus Infection in HIV-Positive Women.

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

5.  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

6.  Comparison of HPV-16 and HPV-18 Genotyping and Cytological Testing as Triage Testing Within Human Papillomavirus-Based Screening in Mexico.

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

7.  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.  DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high-risk HPV positive women.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.