How to deal with double partial verification when evaluating two index tests in relation to a reference test?

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 11-12, 2012, Pages 1265-1276

  van Geloven, Nan ^a   Brooze, Kimiko A ^a   Opmeer, Brent C ^a   Mol, Ben Willem ^a   Zwinderman, Aeilko H ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Missing not at random; Multiple diagnostic tests; Verification bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DOUBLE PARTIAL VERIFICATION; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; IMMUNOASSAY; LAPAROSCOPY; REFERENCE TEST; REPRODUCTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; UTERINE TUBE DISEASE;

ANTIBODIES, BACTERIAL; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALLOPIAN TUBE DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; LAPAROSCOPY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NETHERLANDS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84861192504     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4440     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. New England Journal of Medicine 1978; 299:926-930.
2. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39:207-215.
3. Zhou XH. Maximum-likelihood estimators of sensitivity and specificity corrected for verification bias. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 1993; 22:3177-3198. DOI: 10.1080/03610929308831209.
4. Zhou XH. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1998; 7:337-353. DOI: 10.1177/096228029800700403.
5. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Khan KS, Coomarasamyb A, Bossuyt PM.A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62:797-806. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005.
6. Pepe MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press: Oxford (UK), 2004.
7. Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX.A global sensitivity analysis of performance of a medical diagnostic test when verification bias is present. Statistics in medicine 2003; 22:2711-2721. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1517.
8. Rotnitzky A, Robins JM, Scharfstein DO. Semiparametric regression for repeated outcomes with nonignorable nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1998; 93:1321-1339.
9. Baker SG. Evaluating multiple diagnostic tests with partial verification. Biometrics 1995; 51:330-337.
10. Zhou XH, Castelluccio P. Adjusting for non-ignorable verification bias in clinical studies for Alzheimer's disease. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:221-230. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1711.
11. Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX. Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2003; 59:163-171. DOI: 10.1111/1541-0420.00019.
12. Liu D, Zhou XH.A model for adjusting for nonignorable verification bias in estimation of the ROC curve and its area with likelihood-based approach. Biometrics 2011; 66:1119-1128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01397.x.
13. Coppus SFPJ, Verhoeve HR, Opmeer BC, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Eijkemans MJC, Hompes PGA, Bossuyt PMM, van der Veen F, Mol BWJ. Identifying subfertile ovulatory women for timely tubal patency testing: a clinical decision rule based on medical history. Human Reproduction 2007; 22:2685-2692. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem251.
14. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. American Statistician 1998; 52:119-126.
15. Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Su T, Robins J. Methods for conducting sensitivity analysis of trials with potentially nonignorable competing causes of censoring. Biometrics 2001; 57:103-113.
16. Ibrahim JG, Lipsitz SR, Chen M. Missing covariates in generalized linear models when the missing data mechanism is non-ignorable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 1999; 61:173-190. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9868.00170.
17. Daniels MJ, Hogan JW. Reparameterizing the pattern mixture model for sensitivity analyses under informative dropout. Biometrics 2000; 56:1241-1248. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.01241.x.
18. Molenberghs G, Kenward MG, Goetghebeur E. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: the Slovenian plebiscite case. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C 2001; 50:15-29. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9876.00217.
19. Molenberghs G, Beunckens C, Sotto C, Kenward MG. Every missingness not at random model has a missingness at random counterpart with equal fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 2008; 70:371-388. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00640.x.
20. Zhou XH. Comparing accuracies of two screening tests in a two-phase study for dementia. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C Applied Statistics 1998; 47:135-147. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9876.00102.
21. Roldán Nofuentes JA, Luna del Castillo JD, Marín Jimenez AE. Comparison of the accuracy of multiple binary tests in the presence of partial disease verification. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2010; 140:2504-2519. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.02.026.
22. Albert PS, Dodd LE.A cautionary note on the robustness of latent class models for estimating diagnostic error without a gold standard. Biometrics 2004; 60:427-436.
23. Albert PS, Dodd LE. On estimating diagnostic acuracy from studies with multiple raters and partial gold standard evaluation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103:61-73.
24. Böhning D, Patilea V.A capture-recapture approach for screening using two diagnostic tests with availability of disease status for test positives only. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103:212-221.
25. de Groot JAH, Janssen KJM, Zwinderman AH, Moons KGM, Reitsma JB. Multiple imputation to correct for partial verification bias revisited. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:5880-5889. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3410.
26. de Groot JA, Janssen KJM, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM. Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods. Annals of Epidemiology 2011; 21:139-148. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.004.
27. Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Van Geloven N, Coppus SFPJ, Collins JA, Den Hartog JE, Van der Linden PJQ, Marianowski P, Ng EHY, Van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Strandell A, Van der Veen F, Mol BW. Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2011; 17:293-300. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmq056.
28. Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Coppus SFPJ, Van Geloven N, Alves MFC, Anestad G, Bhattacharya S, Allan J, Guerra-Infante MF, Den Hartog JE, Land JA, Idahl A, Van der Linden PJQ, Mouton JW, Ng EHY, Van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Svenstrup HF, Tiitinen A, Toye B, Van der Veen F, Mol BW. Chlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2011; 17:301-310. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmq060.
29. Albert PS. Estimating diagnostic accuracy of multiple binary tests with an imperfect reference standard. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:780-797. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3514.