A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible

Biometrics

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 605-612

  Alonzo, Todd A ^a   Kittelson, John M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Inverse probability weighting; Pap; Screening; Sensitivity; Specificity; Thin Prep; Verification bias

Indexed keywords

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; SCREENING;

CERVICAL CANCERS; INVERSE PROBABILITY WEIGHTING; PAP; PROBABILITY WEIGHTING; SCREENING TESTS; SENSITIVITY; SPECIFICITY; STANDARD TESTS; THIN-PREP; VERIFICATION BIAS;

DISEASES;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; CANCER; DISEASE PREVALENCE; DISEASE TREATMENT; ESTIMATION METHOD; INVERSE ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; WOMENS HEALTH;

CANCER SCREENING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; METHODOLOGY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED PAIRED SCREEN POSITIVE DESIGN; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; THINPREP TEST; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 33745245265     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: 15410420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00445.x     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Alonzo T. A. ( 2005). Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests. Statistics in Medicine 24, 403 417.
2. Alonzo T. A. Pepe M. S., and Moskowitz C. S. ( 2002). Sample size calculations for comparative studies of medical tests for detecting presence of disease. Statistics in Medicine 21, 835 852.
3. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group 2003). A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamos intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 188, 1393 1400.
4. Baker S. G. and Pinsky P. F. ( 2001). A proposed design and analysis for comparing digital and analog mammography: Special ROC methods for cancer screening. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96, 421 428.
5. Baker S. G. Connor R. J., and Kessler L. G. ( 1998). The partial testing design: A less costly way to test equivalence for sensitivity and specificity. Statistics in Medicine 17, 2219 2232.
6. Begg C. B. and Greenes R. A. ( 1983). Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 39, 207 216.
7. Cheng H. and Macaluso M. ( 1997). Comparison of the accuracy of two tests with a confirmatory procedure limited to positive results. Epidemiology 8, 104 106.
8. Cox B. and Sneyd M. ( 2004). Impact of Liquid-Based Cytology on the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme. Wellington : NZ Ministry of Health.
9. Horvitz D. G. and Thompson D. J. ( 1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47, 663 685.
10. Little R. J. and Rubin D. B. ( 1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York : John Wiley.
11. McCrory D. C. Matchar D. B. Bastian L. Datta S. Hasselblad V. Hickey J. Myers E., and Nanda K. ( 1999). Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 5. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E0101, Rockville, Maryland.
12. Medical Services Advisory Committee 2002). Liquid Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. Canberra : Medical Services Advisory Committee.
13. Pepe M. S. ( 2003). The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. New York : Oxford University Press.
14. Pepe M. S. and Alonzo T. A. ( 2001). Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. Biostatistics 2, 249 260.
15. Pepe M. S. Etzioni R. Feng Z. Potter J. D. Thompson M. Thornquist M. Winget M., and Yasui Y. ( 2001). Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93, 1054 1061.
16. Reis L. Eisner M. P. Kosary C. L. Hankey B. F. Miller B. A. Clegg L., and Edwards B. K. ( 2002). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1971-1999. Bethesda, Maryland : National Cancer Institute.
17. Schatzkin A. Connor R. J., and Taylor P. R. ( 1987). Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. American Journal of Epidemiology 125, 672 678.
18. Schiffman M. H. Brinton L. A. Devesa S. S., and Fraumeni J. F., Jr. 1996). Cervical cancer. In Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, D. Schottenfeld and J. F. Fraumeni Jr.. (eds), 1090 1116. New York : Oxford University Press.
19. Steering Group on the Feasibility of Introducing Liquid Based Cytology 2002). Steering Group Report on the Feasibility of Introducing Liquid Based Cytology. Edinburgh : Scottish Cervical Screening Programme.