Literature DB >> 3826045

Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer.

A Schatzkin, R J Connor, P R Taylor, B Bunnag.   

Abstract

Direct determination of the sensitivity and specificity of a screening test requires use of a reference procedure (such as biopsy with histopathologic analysis) that provides an estimate of true disease status. The authors present a method for comparing the accuracy of a new screening test to an old one in situations when it is not feasible to apply the reference procedure to all screenees. This method requires that only those persons who test positive on old or new screening tests be further evaluated with the reference procedure. Ratios of sensitivities and specificities are derived for rapid comparison of the two screening tests. It is shown that McNemar's test can be used for significance testing of the differences in sensitivities and specificities between two screening tests. The required sample size for a study that compares the two tests is determined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3826045     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  20 in total

Review 1.  The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?

Authors:  Blase Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2012-12

2.  Impact of mass screening for gluten-sensitive enteropathy in working population.

Authors:  Meritxell Mariné; Fernando Fernández-Bañares; Montserrat Alsina; Carme Farré; Montserrat Cortijo; Rebeca Santaolalla; Antonio Salas; Margarita Tomàs; Elias Abugattas; Carme Loras; Ingrid Ordás; Josep-M Viver; Maria Esteve
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

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

Review 4.  The Reproducibility of Changes in Diagnostic Figures of Merit Across Laboratory and Clinical Imaging Reader Studies.

Authors:  Frank W Samuelson; Craig K Abbey
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population.

Authors:  L Guittet; V Bouvier; N Mariotte; J P Vallee; D Arsène; S Boutreux; J Tichet; G Launoy
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-08-04       Impact factor: 23.059

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

Authors:  Xiaonan Xue; Mimi Y Kim; Philip E Castle; Howard D Strickler
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Using Relative Statistics and Approximate Disease Prevalence to Compare Screening Tests.

Authors:  Frank Samuelson; Craig Abbey
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 0.968

8.  Diagnostic accuracy and yield of screening tests for atrial fibrillation in the family practice setting: a multicentre cohort study.

Authors:  F Russell Quinn; David J Gladstone; Noah M Ivers; Roopinder K Sandhu; Lisa Dolovich; Andrea Ling; Juliet Nakamya; Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige; Paul A Frydrych; Sam Henein; Ken Ng; Valerie Congdon; Richard V Birtwhistle; Richard Ward; Jeffrey S Healey
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-02

9.  Methods for Assessing Improvement in Specificity when a Biomarker is Combined with a Standard Screening Test.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Margaret S Pepe; Todd A Alonzo; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 1.452

Review 10.  How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Guglielmo Ronco; Jack Cuzick; Nicolas Wentzensen; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.