Literature DB >> 9393377

Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified.

C Chock1, L Irwig, G Berry, P Glasziou.   

Abstract

Two dichotomous screening tests are often compared by performing both tests in a sampled population, and submitting positive results on either test to verification by the reference standard. Unbiased estimates of the true positive and false positive rates of each test cannot be estimated directly. However, unbiased estimates of the relative true positive and relative false positive rates may be obtained. When one test has a higher true positive rate at the expense of a higher false positive rate, the trade-off is represented by the ratio of extra false positives detected to extra true positives detected. A 95% confidence interval for this ratio is derived. This ratio is prevalence dependent and only applies to the sampled population. For target populations of different prevalence, estimates of the ratio may be obtained if one of the following applies: (i) the test characteristics of one test are known; (ii) the relative prevalence is known; and (iii) certain assumptions are made.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9393377     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00122-4

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Patrick Bossuyt; Paul Glasziou; Constantine Gatsonis; Jeroen Lijmer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-03-16

2.  Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of the study populations.

Authors:  R Harper; D Henson; B C Reeves
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 3.  Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Les Irwig; Jonathan Craig; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

4.  Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Nehmat Houssami; Bruce Armstrong; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-25

Review 5.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

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

6.  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

7.  Prevalence estimation when disease status is verified only among test positives: Applications in HIV screening programs.

Authors:  Emma G Thomas; Sarah B Peskoe; Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Performance value of high risk factors in colorectal cancer screening in China.

Authors:  Wen Meng; Shan-Rong Cai; Lun Zhou; Qi Dong; Shu Zheng; Su-Zhan Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  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

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.