Comparison of the likelihood ratios of two binary diagnostic tests in paired designs

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 22, 2007, Pages 4179-4201

  Nofuentes, José Antonio Roldán ^a   del Castillo, Juan de Dios Luna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Binary diagnostic test; Likelihood ratio; Sample size; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANAMNESIS; ANGINA PECTORIS; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EXERCISE TEST; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPAIN;

EID: 34548636469     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2850     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. Wiley: New York, 2002.
2. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press: New York, 2003.
3. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Little & Brown: Boston, 1985.
4. Boyko EJ. Ruling out or ruling in disease with the most sensitive or specific diagnostic test: short cut or wrong turn? Medical Decision Making 1994; 14:175-179.
5. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 271:703-707.
6. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical Epidemiology. The Essentials. Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore, 1996.
7. Boyd JC. Mathematical tools for demonstrating the clinical usefulness of biochemical markers. Scandinavian Journal or Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 1997; 227:46-63.
8. Blume JD. Likelihood methods for measuring statistical evidence. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:2563-2599.
9. Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1991; 44:763-770.
10. Biggerstaff BJ. Comparing diagnostic tests: a simple graphic using likelihood ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19:649--663.
11. Leisenring W, Pepe MS. Regressión modelling of diagnostic likelihood ratios for the evaluation of medical diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1998; 54:444-452.
12. Roldán Nofuentes JA, Luna del Castillo JD. Comparing the likelihood ratios of two binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial verification. Biometrical Journal 2005; 47:442-457.
13. Zhou XH. Comparing accuracies of two screening tests in a two-phase study for dementia. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series C - Applied Statistics 1998; 47:135-147.
14. Zehna PW. Invariance of maximum likelihood estimation. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1966; 37:744.
15. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York, 1990.
16. Vacek PM. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1985; 41: 959-968.
17. Weiner DA, Ryan TJ, McCabe CH, Kennedy JW, Schloss M, Tristani F, Chaitman BR, Fisher LD. Correlations among history of angina, ST-segment and prevalence of coronary artery disease in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). New England Journal of Medicine 1979; 301:230-235.
18. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry 1993; 39:561-577.