Sample size calculations for evaluating a diagnostic test when the gold standard is missing at random

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 15, 2010, Pages 1572-1579

  Kosinski, Andrzej S ^a   Chen, Ying ^b   Lyles, Robert H ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BIOGEN   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Confidence region; Diagnostic test; Missing at random; Sample size; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE COURSE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MISSING AT RANDOM; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOM SAMPLE; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77953760491     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3899     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2003.
2. Obuchowski NA, Katzman-McClish D. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:1529-1542.
3. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS, Moskowitz CS. Sample size calculations for comparative studies of medical tests for detecting presence of disease. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:835-852. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1058.
4. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Wiley: New York, 1987.
5. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subjected to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39:207-215.
6. Zhou XH. Maximum likelihood estimators of sensitivity and specificity corrected for verification bias. Communication in Statistics-Theory and Methods 1993; 22:3177-3198.
7. Nofuentes JAR, Castillo JDL, Alonso MAM. Determining sample size to evaluate and compare the accuracy of binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial disease verification. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2009; 53:742-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2008.07.030.
8. Irwig L, Glasziou PP, Berry G, Chook C, Mock P, Simpson JM. Efficient study designs to asses the accuracy of screening tests. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 140:759-769. (Pubitemid 24322188)
9. Obuchowski NA, Zhou XH. Prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy when disease prevalence is low. Biostatistics 2002; 3:477-492.
10. McNamee R. Optimal designs of two-stage studies for estimation of sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:3609-3625. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1318.
11. Harel O, Zhou XH. Multiple imputation: review of theory, implementation and software. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3057-3077. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2787.
12. Baker SG. Evaluating multiple diagnostic tests with partial verification. Biometrics 1995; 51:330-337.
13. Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX. A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 18:2711-2721. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1517.