Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: A hierarchical model using multi-center data

Cancer Epidemiology

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 153-160

  Stock, Eileen M ^a,b   Stamey, James D ^a   Sankaranarayanan, Rengaswamy ^c   Young, Dean M ^a   Muwonge, Richard ^c   Arbyn, Marc ^d  

^a BAYLOR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^d SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Diagnostic or screening; Hierarchical Bayesian model; Mixed logit model; Sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICA; AGED; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INDIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

AFRICA; BAYES THEOREM; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIA; PREVALENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84858792439     PISSN: 18777821     EISSN: 1877783X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Berry G., Smith C.L., Macaskill P., Irwig L. 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 2002, 21(6):853-862.
2. Arbyn M., Castellsagué X., de Sanjosé S., Bruni L., Saraiya M., Bray F., Ferlay J. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Ann Oncol 2011, (Epub-ahead of print). 10.1093/annonc/mdr015.
3. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Iarc cancerbase no. 10 [internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Available from http://globocan.iarc.fr.
4. Arbyn M, Gaffikin L, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, Keita N, Wesley R, et al. Assessment of innovative approaches to cervical cancer screening, follow-up and treatment of screen detected cervical lesions in developing countries: A pooled analysis of accp study results. IPH/EPI REPORTS, 2006. 2008.
5. Arbyn M., Sankaranarayanan R., Muwonge R., Keita N., Dolo A., Mbalawa C.G., Nouhou H., Sakande B., et al. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 2008, 123(1):153-160.
6. Katz I.T., Wright A.A. Preventing cervical cancer in the developing world. N Engl J Med 2006, 354(11):1110.
7. Gakidou E., Nordhagen S., Obermeyer Z. Coverage of cervical cancer screening in 57 countries: low average levels and large inequalities. Public Lib Sci Med 2008, 5(6):e132.
8. Chen Y., Brock G., Wu D. Estimating key parameters in periodic breast cancer screening-application to the Canadian national breast screening study data. Cancer Epidemiol 2010, 34(4):429-433.
9. Martinez E.Z., Louzada-Neto F., Derchain S.F., Achcar J.A., Gontijo R.C., Sarian L.O., et al. Bayesian estimation of performance measures of cervical cancer screening tests in the presence of covariates and absence of a gold standard. Cancer Inform 2008, 6:33-46.
10. Zhou X. Comparing accuracies of two screening tests in a two-phase study for dementia. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat) 1998, 47(1):135-147.
11. MacNab Y.C. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of spatially correlated health service outcome and utilization rates. Biometrics 2003, 59(2):305-316.
12. Dendukuri N., Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2001, 57(1):158-167.
13. Arbyn M., Ronco G., Cuzick J., Wentzensen N., Castle P.E. How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?. Int J Cancer 2009, 125(11):2489-2496.