A sequential design to estimate sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic or screening test

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue 20, 2006, Pages 3458-3473

  Wruck, Lisa M ^a   Yiannoutsos, Constantin T ^b   Hughes, Michael D ^c  

^a NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH INSTITUTES   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Repeated confidence interval; Sample size; Study design; Two stage design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING; SAMPLING ERROR; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS;

BIOMETRY; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33750058837     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2451     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Tosteson TD, Titus-Ernstoff L, Baron JA, Karagas MR. A two-stage validation study for determining sensitivity and specificity. Environmental Health Perspectives 1994; 102(Suppl. 8):11-14.
2. Irwig LI, Glasziou PP, Berry G, Chock C, Mock P, Simpson JM. Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 140:759-769.
3. McNamee R. Optimal designs of two-stage studies for estimation of sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:3609-3625.
4. Obuchowski NA, Zhou XH. Prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy when disease prevalence is low. Biostatistics 2002; 3:477-492.
5. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39:207-215.
6. Dore GJ, Correll PK, Li Y et al. Changes to AIDS dementia complex in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 1999; 13:1249-1253.
7. Tenenbein A. A double sampling scheme for estimation from binomial data with misclassifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1970; 65:1350-1361.
8. Zhou XH. Maximum likelihood estimators of sensitivity and specificity corrected for verification bias. Communication in Statistics - Theory and Methods 1993; 22:3177-3198.
9. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group Sequential Methods with Applications to Clinical Trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC: London/Boca Raton, FL, 2000.
10. Whitehead J. Supplementary analysis at the conclusion of a sequential clinical trial. Biometrics 1986; 42: 461-471.
11. Whitehead J. On the bias of maximum likelihood estimation following a sequential test. Biometrika 1986; 73:573-581.
12. Hughes MD, Pocock SJ. Stopping rules and estimation problems in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1988; 7:1231-1242.
13. Price RW, Yiannoutsos CT, Dlifford DB et al. Neurological outcomes in late HIV infection: adverse impact of neurological impairment on survival and protective effect of antiviral therapy. AIDS 1999; 13:1677-1685.