Computational methods for comparing two binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial verification of the disease

Computational Statistics

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 695-718

  Roldan Nofuentes J A ^a   Luna del Castillo, J D ^a   Femia Marzo, P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Confidence interval; EM and SEM algorithm; Partial verification; Verification bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449523534     PISSN: 09434062     EISSN: 16139658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00180-009-0155-y     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Agresti A, Min Y (2005) Sample improved confidence intervals for comparing matched proportions. Stat Med 24: 729-740. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 1781.
2. Begg C, Greenes R (1983) Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 39: 207-215. doi: 10. 2307/2530820.
3. Bernaards CA, Belin TR, Schafer JL (2007) Robutness of a multivariate normal approximation for imputation of incomplete binary data. Stat Med 26: 1368-1382. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 2619.
4. Berry G, Smith C, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2002) Analytic methods for comparing two dichotomous screening or diagnostic tests applied to two populations of differing disease prevalence when individuals negative on both tests are unverified. Stat Med 21: 853-862. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 1066.
5. Cesana BM (2004) Sample size for testing and estimating the difference between two paired and unpaired proportions: a 'two-step' procedure combining power and the probability of obtaining a precise estimate. Stat Med 23: 2359-2373. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 1827.
6. Dempster A, Laird N, Rubin D (1977) Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 39: 1-38.
7. Fleiss J, Levin B, Paik M (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New Jersey.
8. Harel O, Zhou XH (2006) Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias. Stat Med 25: 3769-3786. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 2494.
9. Hui S, Walter S (1980) Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 36: 167-171. doi: 10. 2307/2530508.
10. Kosinski AS, Barnhart H (2003a) A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present. Stat Med 22: 2711-2721. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 1517.
11. Kosinski A, Barnhart H (2003b) Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 59: 163-171. doi: 10. 1111/1541-0420. 00019.
12. May WL, Johnson WD (1997) Confidence intervals for differences in correlated binary proportions. Stat Med 16: 2127-2136. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970930)16: 18<2127:: AID-SIM633> 3. 0. CO; 2-W.
13. Meng X, Rubin D (1991) Using EM to obtain asymptotic variance-covariance matrices: the SEM algorithm. J Am Stat Assoc 86: 899-909. doi: 10. 2307/2290503.
14. Newcombe RG (1998) Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med 17: 2635-2650. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981130)17: 22<2635:: AID-SIM954> 3. 0. CO; 2-C.
15. Pepe M (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, New York.
16. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2005) Comparing the likelihood ratios of two binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial verification. Biom J 47: 442-457. doi: 10. 1002/bimj. 200410134.
17. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2006) Comparing two binary diagnostic tests in the presence of verification bias. Comput Stat Data Anal 50: 1551-1564. doi: 10. 1016/j. csda. 2005. 01. 006.
18. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2007a) The effect of verification bias in the naïve estimators of accuracy of a binary diagnostic test. Comm Stat Simul Comput 36: 959-972. doi: 10. 1080/03610910701539369.
19. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2007b) Risk of error and kappa coefficient of a binary diagnostic test in presence of partial verification. J Appl Stat 34: 887-898.
20. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2007c) The effect of verification bias on the comparison of predictive values of two binary diagnostic tests. J Stat Plan Inference 138: 950-963. doi: 10. 1016/j. jspi. 2007. 03. 054.
21. Roldán Nofuentes J, Lunadel Castillo J (2007) EM algorithm for comparing two binary diagnostic tests when not all the patients are verified. J Stat Comput Simul 78: 19-35. doi: 10. 1080/10629360600938102.
22. Rubin D (1976) Inference and missing data. Biometrika 4: 73-89.
23. Tango T (1998) Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. Stat Med 17: 891-908. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17: 8<891:: AID-SIM780> 3. 0. CO; 2-B.
24. Torrance-Rynard V, Walter S (1997) Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. Stat Med 16: 2157-2175. doi: 10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19971015)16: 19<2157:: AID-SIM653> 3. 0. CO; 2-X.
25. Vacek P (1985) The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 41: 959-968. doi: 10. 2307/2530967.
26. Zhou X (1993) Maximum likelihood estimators of sensitivity and specificity corrected for verification bias. Comm Stat Theory Method 22: 3177-3198. doi: 10. 1080/03610929308831209.
27. Zhou X (1998) Comparing accuracies of two screening tests in a two-phase study for dementia. Appl Stat 47: 135-147. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9876. 00102.
28. Zhou X, Obuchowski N, McClish D (2002) Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. Wiley, New York.
29. Zhou X, Qin G (2005) A new confidence interval for the difference between two binomial proportions of paired data. J Stat Plan Inference 128: 527-542. doi: 10. 1016/j. jspi. 2003. 11. 005.