Verification bias on sensitivity and specificity measurements in diagnostic medicine: a comparison of some approaches used for correction

İlker �nal and H. Refik Burgut

Journal of Applied Statistics, 2014, vol. 41, issue 5, 1091-1104

Abstract: Verification bias may occur when the test results of not all subjects are verified by using a gold standard. The correction for this bias can be made using different approaches depending on whether missing gold standard test results are random or not. Some of these approaches with binary test and gold standard results include the correction method by Begg and Greenes, lower and upper limits for diagnostic measurements by Zhou, logistic regression method, multiple imputation method, and neural networks. In this study, all these approaches are compared by employing a real and simulated data under different conditions.

Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02664763.2013.862217 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:japsta:v:41:y:2014:i:5:p:1091-1104

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJAS20

DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2013.862217

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Applied Statistics is currently edited by Robert Aykroyd

More articles in Journal of Applied Statistics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().