Statistical methods to correct for verification bias in diagnostic studies are inadequate when there are few false negatives: A simulation study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Cronin, Angel M ^a   Vickers, Andrew J ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CANCER SCREENING; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE ACTIVITY; IMAGING; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; RESEARCH; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROSTATE TUMOR; SCINTISCANNING; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 57649136472     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-75     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. CB Begg RA Greenes, Biometrics 1983 39 1 207 215 10.2307/2530820 6871349
2. Construction of receiver operating characteristic curves when disease verification is subject to selection bias. R Gray CB Begg RA Greenes, Med Decis Making 1984 4 2 151 164 10.1177/0272989X8400400204 6472063
3. Results of a prospective multicenter study for evaluation of the diagnostic quality of an open whole-body low-field MRI unit. A comparison with high-field MRI measured by the applicable gold standard. T Merl M Scholz P Gerhardt M Langer J Laubenberger HD Weiss HB Gehl KJ Wolf I Ohnesorge, Eur J Radiol 1999 30 1 43 53 10.1016/S0720-048X(98)00134-X 10389012
4. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. RS Punglia AV D'Amico WJ Catalona KA Roehl KM Kuntz, N Engl J Med 2003 349 4 335 342 10.1056/NEJMoa021659 12878740
5. Sex and test verification bias. Impact on the diagnostic value of exercise echocardiography. VL Roger PA Pellikka MR Bell CW Chow KR Bailey JB Seward, Circulation 1997 95 2 405 410 9008457
6. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography for diagnosis of suspected lung cancer: impact of verification bias. MS Lauer SC Murthy EH Blackstone IC Okereke TW Rice, Arch Intern Med 2007 167 2 161 165 10.1001/archinte.167.2.161 17242317
7. Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. TD Miller DO Hodge TF Christian JJ Milavetz KR Bailey RJ Gibbons, Am J Med 2002 112 4 290 297 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)01111-1 11893368
8. Primary cervical cancer screening by self-sampling of human papillomavirus DNA in internal medicine outpatient clinics. C Dannecker U Siebert CJ Thaler D Kiermeir H Hepp P Hillemanns, Ann Oncol 2004 15 6 863 869 10.1093/annonc/mdh240 15151941
9. Screening for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and cancer by testing for high-risk HPV, routine cytology or colposcopy. A Schneider H Hoyer B Lotz S Leistritza R Kuhne-Heid I Nindl B Muller J Haerting M Durst, Int J Cancer 2000 89 6 529 534 10.1002/1097-0215(20001120)89:6<529::AID- IJC11>3.0.CO;2-G 11102899
10. Assessing accuracy of a continuous screening test in the presence of verification bias. TA Alonzo MS Pepe, Applied Statistics 2005 54 173 190
11. RJ Little DB Rubin, Statistical Analysis with Missing Data New York: Wiley 1978
12. Testing for fetal pulmonary maturity: ROC analysis involving covariates, verification bias, and combination testing. MG Hunink DK Richardson PM Doubilet CB Begg, Med Decis Making 1990 10 3 201 211 10.1177/0272989X9001000307 2370827
13. MS Pepe, The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003
14. Verification bias in pediatric studies evaluating diagnostic tests. AS Bates PA Margolis AT Evans, J Pediatr 1993 122 4 585 590 10.1016/S0022-3476(05) 83540-1 8463905
15. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. S Mallett JJ Deeks S Halligan S Hopewell V Cornelius DG Altman, Bmj 2006 333 7565 413 10.1136/bmj.38895.467130.55 16849365
16. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. IM Thompson DP Ankerst C Chi PJ Goodman CM Tangen MS Lucia Z Feng HL Parnes CA Coltman Jr, J Natl Cancer Inst 2006 98 8 529 534 16622122
17. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society. 2007
18. Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias by Ofer Harel and Xiao-Hua Zhou, Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3769-3786. JA Hanley N Dendukuri CB Begg, Stat Med 2007 26 15 author reply 3047-3050. 17340672