Estimating disease prevalence in a Bayesian framework using probabilistic constraints

Epidemiology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 145-153

  Berkvens, Dirk ^a   Speybroeck, Niko ^a   Praet, Nicolas ^a   Adel, Amel ^b   Lesaffre, Emmanuel ^c  

^a INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL MEDICINE   (Belgium)

^b Département Clinique   (Algeria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CYSTICERCOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CYSTICERCOSIS; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE; ZAMBIA;

EID: 33646798416     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000198422.64801.8d     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Rogan WJ, Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;107:71-76.
2. Thrusfield D. Veterinary Epidemiology. Oxford University Press; 1995.
3. Toma B, Beńet J-J, Dufour B, et al. Glossaire d'É pidémiologie Animale. Éditions du Point Vétérinaire; 1991.
4. Billiouw M, Vercruysse J, Marcotty T, et al. Theileria parva epidemics: a case study in eastern Zambia. Vet Parasitol. 2002;107:51-63.
5. Billiouw M, Brandt J, Vercruysse J, et al. Evaluation of the indirect fluorescent antibody test as a diagnostic tool for East Coast fever in eastern Zambia. Vet Parasitol. 2005;127:189-198.
6. Saegerman C, De Waele L, Gilson D, et al. Evaluation of three serum i-ELISAs using monoclonal antibodies and protein G as peroxidase conjugate for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:91-105.
7. Greiner M, Gardner IA. Epidemiological issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med. 2000;45:3-22.
8. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1987;6:411-423.
9. Georgiadis M, Johnson W, Gardner I, et al. Correlation-adjusted estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests. Appl Stat. 2003;52:63-76.
10. Hui SL, Walter SD. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1980;36:167-171.
11. Joseph L, Gyorkos TW, Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:263-273.
12. Johnson WO, Gastwirth JL, Pearson LM. Screening without a 'gold standard': the Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;153:921-924.
13. Toft N, Jørgensen E, Højsgaard S. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard. Prev Vet Med. 2005;68:19-33.
14. Enoe C, Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true diseases state is unknown. Prev Vet Med. 2000;45:61-81.
15. Branscum AJ, Gardner IA, Johnson WO. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modelling. Prev Vet Med. 2005;68:145-163.
16. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). JR Stat Soc [Ser B]. 2002;64:583-640.
17. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stem HS, et al. Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2003.
18. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, et al. WinBUGS Version 1.4 User Manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003. Available at: http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac. uk/bugs/.
19. The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.r-project.org/.
20. bugs.R: functions for running WinBugs from R. Available at: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/bugsR/.
21. R and WinBUGS program listings. Available at: http://www.itg.be/itg/ uploads/animalhealth/diagtest.pdf.
22. Gardner IA, Stryhn H, Lind P, et al. Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal diseases. Prev Vet Med. 2000;45:107-122.
23. Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modelling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 2001;57:208-217.
24. Adel A, Berkvens D. Modelling conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests, using co-variances between test results. Internal Technical Report, ITM; April 16, 2002. Available at: http://www.itg.be/itg/uploads/ animalhealth/internal_document.pdf.
25. Young K, Pettit L. Measuring discordancy between prior and data. J R Stat Soc [Ser B]. 1996;58:679-689.
26. Garcia HH, Del Brutto OH. Taenia solium cysticercosis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2000;14:97-119.
27. Phiri IK, Dorny P, Gabriel S, et al. The prevalence of porcine cysticercosis in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia. Vet Parasitol. 2002;108:31-39.
28. Dorny P, Phiri IK, Vercruysse J, et al. A Bayesian approach for estimating values for prevalence and diagnostic test characteristics of porcine cysticercosis. Int J Parasitol. 2004;34:569-576.
29. Pouillot R, Gerbier G, Gardner IA. 'TAGS,' a program for the evaluation of test accuracy in the absence of a gold standard. Prev Vet Med. 2002;53:67-81.