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

被引:21
作者
Berry, G [1 ]
Smith, CL [1 ]
Macaskill, P [1 ]
Irwig, L [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Dept Publ Hlth & Community Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
sensitivity and specificity; diagnostic tests; statistical epidemiological methods;
D O I
10.1002/sim.1066
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Two dichotomous screening tests may be compared by applying both tests to all members of a sampled population. For individuals with a positive result on either test the disease status may be verified by a reference standard, but for individuals negative on both tests the disease status may be unverified because the probability of disease is so low that further investigation is costly, unacceptable and perhaps unethical. If the tests have been applied to samples from two populations which have different disease prevalences then unbiased estimates of the true positive and false positive rates of each test, the prevalences in the two populations, and two parameters representing dependence between the two tests can be estimated using maximum likelihood methods. The methods are based on the assumption that the sensitivities and specificities of the two tests, and the dependencies between the tests, are independent of prevalence, A test of goodness of fit provides a test of this. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:853 / 862
页数:10
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Castiglione G, 1997, J Med Screen, V4, P142
[2]   Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer [J].
Castiglione, G ;
Zappa, M ;
Grazzini, G ;
Mazzotta, A ;
Biagini, M ;
Salvadori, P ;
Ciatto, S .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1996, 74 (01) :141-144
[3]   Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified [J].
Chock, C ;
Irwig, L ;
Berry, G ;
Glasziou, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (11) :1211-1217
[4]   METHODOLOGY TO CORRECT FOR DIFFERENTIAL MISCLASSIFICATION [J].
FLANDERS, WD ;
DREWS, CD ;
KOSINSKI, AS .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 6 (02) :152-156
[5]   ESTIMATING THE ERROR RATES OF DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS [J].
HUI, SL ;
WALTER, SD .
BIOMETRICS, 1980, 36 (01) :167-171
[6]   SPECTRUM BIAS IN THE EVALUATION OF DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS - LESSONS FROM THE RAPID DIPSTICK TEST FOR URINARY-TRACT INFECTION [J].
LACHS, MS ;
NACHAMKIN, I ;
EDELSTEIN, PH ;
GOLDMAN, J ;
FEINSTEIN, AR ;
SCHWARTZ, JS .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1992, 117 (02) :135-140
[7]   Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: A clinical example [J].
Moons, KGM ;
vanEs, GA ;
Deckers, JW ;
Habbema, JDF ;
Grobbee, DE .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 8 (01) :12-17
[8]   Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests [J].
Qu, YS ;
Tan, M ;
Kutner, MH .
BIOMETRICS, 1996, 52 (03) :797-810
[9]   COMPARING NEW AND OLD SCREENING-TESTS WHEN A REFERENCE PROCEDURE CANNOT BE PERFORMED ON ALL SCREENEES - EXAMPLE OF AUTOMATED CYTOMETRY FOR EARLY DETECTION OF CERVICAL-CANCER [J].
SCHATZKIN, A ;
CONNOR, RJ ;
TAYLOR, PR ;
BUNNAG, B .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1987, 125 (04) :672-678
[10]  
SCKETT DL, 2000, EVIDENCE BASED MED P, P67