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

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 50, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 1211-1217

  Chock, Catherine ^a,c   Irwig, Les ^a   Berry, Geoffrey ^a   Glasziou, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Epidemiological methods; Sensitivity and specificity; Statistical data interpretation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; STANDARD;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREVALENCE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0030728169     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00122-4     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Frommer DJ, Kapparis A, Brown MK. Improved screening for colorectal cancer by immunological detection of occult blood. Br Med J 1988; 296: 1092-1094.
2. Armitage N, Hardcastle JD, Amar SS, Balfour TW, Haynes J, James PD. A comparison of an immunological faecal occult blood test fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA with haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1985; 51: 799-804.
3. Iwase T. Evaluation of an immunochemical fecal occult blood test by reversed passive hemagglutination compared with hemoccult II screening for colorectal cancer. In: Young GP, Saito H, Eds. Faecal Occult Blood Tests. San Jose: Smith Kline Diagnostics Inc; 1992, pp. 90-94.
4. Porschen R, Kruis W, Strohmeyer G. Fecal occult blood testing: Comparative evaluation of a two-hole versus a three-hole single slide test. Hepato-Gastroenterol 1993; 40: 191-193.
5. Rozen P, Ron E, Fireman ZVI, Hallak A, Grossman A, Baratz M, Rattan J, Gilat T. The relative value of fecal occult blood tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for large bowel neoplasia. Cancer 1987; 60: 2553-2558.
6. Schatzkin A, Connor RJ, Taylor PR, Bunnag B. Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 672-678.
7. Fahey M, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141: 680-689.
8. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 926-30.
9. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39: 207-215.
10. Diamond GA. Reverend Bayes' silent majority: An alternative factor affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57: 1175-1180.
11. Irwig L, Glasziou P, Berry G, Chock C, Mock P, Simpson JM. Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 759-769.
12. Chock CL. Analytic Methods for Comparing Dichotomous Screening Tests [Master of Public Health treatise]. Sydney: University of Sydney; 1995.
13. Kendall MG, Stuart A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Vol 1: Distribution Theory. London: Charles Griffin and Company Limited; 1958.
14. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM, Ederer F. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1365-1371.
15. Sheps SB, Schecter MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests. J Am Med Assoc 1984; 252: 2418-2422.
16. Arroll B, Schechter MT, Sheps SB. The assessment of diagnostic tests: A comparison of the recent medical literature-1982 versus 1985. J Gen Intern Med 1988; 3: 443-447.
17. Department of Public Health, University of Sydney, and The Epidemiology and Health Services Evaluation Branch, NSW Department of Health. Should We Screen for Colorectal Cancer? Sydney, NSW, Australia: Department of Health; April 1994.
18. Hui SL, Walter SD. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1980; 36: 167-171.
19. Walter SD, Frommer DJ, Cook RJ. The estimation of sensitivity and specificity in colorectal cancer screening methods. Cancer Detection and Prevention 1991; 15: 465-469.
20. Vacek PM. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1985; 41: 959-968.
21. Hanley JA. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) methodology: The state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1989; 29: 307-335.
22. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1994.