The utility of prior information and stratification for parameter estimation with two screening tests but no gold standard

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1203-1217

  Gustafson, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Epidemiologic methods; Misclassification; Non identified models; Prevalence; Prior information; Sensitivity and specificity; Stratification; Two diagnostic or screening tests

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; HUMAN; PARAMETRIC TEST; PREVALENCE; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORY;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOMETRY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 16844381373     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2002     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Joseph L, Gyorkos TW, Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. American Journal of Epidemiology 1995; 141 263-272.
2. Andersen S. Re: Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard (Letter). American Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 145:290-291.
3. Johnson WO, Gastwirth JL, Pearson LM. Screening without a gold-standard: the Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. American Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 153:921-924.
4. Hui SL, Walter SD. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1980; 36:167-171.
5. Gustafson P. On model expansion, model contraction, identifiability, and prior information: two illustrative scenarios involving mismeasured variables (with discussion). Statistical Science 2005; 20: to appear.
6. Gustafson P. Measurement Error and Misclassification in Statistics and Epidemiology: Impacts and Bayesian Adjustments. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, 2003.
7. Torrance-Rynard VL, Walter SD. Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:2157-2175.
8. Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modelling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2001; 57:158-167.
9. Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO, Gardner IA, Singh R. Correlation-adjusted estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests. Applied Statistics 2003; 52:63-76.
10. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine 1987; 6:411-423.
11. Swartz T, Haitovsky Y, Vexler A, Yang T. Bayesian identifiability and misclassification in multinomial data. Canadian Journal of Statistics 2004; 32: to appear.
12. Neath AE, Samaniego FJ. On the efficacy of Bayesian inference for nonidentifiable models. American Statistician 1997; 51 225-232.
13. Gustafson P, Le ND, Saskin R. Case-control analysis with partial knowledge of exposure misclassification probabilities. Biometrics 2001; 57:598-609.
14. Hanson TE, Johnson WO, Gardner IA. Hierarchical models for the estimation of disease prevalence and the sensitivity and specificity of dependent tests in the absence of a gold-standard. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 2003; 8 223-239.
15. Drews CD, Flanders WD, Kosinski AS. Use of two data sources to estimate odds-ratios in case-control studies. Epidemiology 1993; 4:327-335.
16. Singer RS, Boyce W, Gardner IA, Johnson WO, Fisher AS. Evaluation of blue-tongue virus diagnostic tests in free-ranging bighorn sheep. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 1998; 35:265-282.
17. Rhame E, Joseph L, Gyorkos TW. Bayesian sample size determination for estimating binomial parameters from data subject to misclassification. Applied Statistics 2000; 49:119-128.