Literature DB >> 35916602

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

Jessica Chubak1,2, Andrea N Burnett-Hartman3,4, William E Barlow5, Douglas A Corley6, Jennifer M Croswell7, Christine Neslund-Dudas8, Anil Vachani9, Michelle I Silver10, Jasmin A Tiro11,12, Aruna Kamineni1.   

Abstract

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities. ©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35916602      PMCID: PMC9484579          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  15 in total

Review 1.  Effect of verification bias on the sensitivity of fecal occult blood testing: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alan S Rosman; Mark A Korsten
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  A simple method to estimate the episode and programme sensitivity of breast cancer screening programmes.

Authors:  Manuel Zorzi; Stefano Guzzinati; Donella Puliti; Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Quality of mammography screening in the Milan programme: evidence of improved sensitivity based on interval cancer proportional incidence and radiological review.

Authors:  Pirola Maria Elena; Houssami Nehmat; Maltagliati Ermes; Ceresa Piera; Quattrocchi Maria; Marinoni Guia; Caimi Francesco; Villa Roberto; Falda Giovanni; Gaffuri Isabella; Ciatto Stefano
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Episode sensitivity in association with process indicators in the Finnish breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Tytti Sarkeala; Matti Hakama; Irma Saarenmaa; Timo Hakulinen; Hakan Forsman; Ahti Anttila
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-01-01       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Hemoccult screening in detecting colorectal neoplasm: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. Long-term follow-up in a large group practice setting.

Authors:  J E Allison; R Feldman; I S Tekawa
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Verification bias.

Authors:  Jack W O'Sullivan; Amitava Banerjee; Carl Heneghan; Annette Pluddemann
Journal:  BMJ Evid Based Med       Date:  2018-02-27

7.  Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  S Hofvind; B M Geller; J Skelly; P M Vacek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Interval cancer incidence and episode sensitivity in the Norrbotten Mammography Screening Programme, Sweden.

Authors:  Pál Bordás; Håkan Jonsson; Lennarth Nyström; Per Lenner
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  Comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect reference standard - a comparison of correction methods.

Authors:  Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere; Kevin J Wilson; A Joy Allen; Luke Vale
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality.

Authors:  Deborah H Glueck; Molly M Lamb; Colin I O'Donnell; Brandy M Ringham; John T Brinton; Keith E Muller; John M Lewin; Todd A Alonzo; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.