IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v53y2009i3p742-755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining sample size to evaluate and compare the accuracy of binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial disease verification

Author

Listed:
  • Roldán Nofuentes, J.A.
  • Luna del Castillo, J.D.
  • Montero Alonso, M.A.

Abstract

Calculating sample size to evaluate the accuracy of a binary diagnostic test and to compare the accuracy of two binary diagnostic tests is an important question in the study of diagnostic statistical methods. In the presence of partial disease verification, the disease status of some patients in the sample is unknown, so that the calculation of sample size can be complicated. A method to calculate sample size when evaluating the sensitivity and the specificity of a binary diagnostic test and when comparing the sensitivity and specificity of two binary tests in the presence of partial disease verification is proposed. The results obtained were applied to the diagnosis of coronary stenosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Roldán Nofuentes, J.A. & Luna del Castillo, J.D. & Montero Alonso, M.A., 2009. "Determining sample size to evaluate and compare the accuracy of binary diagnostic tests in the presence of partial disease verification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 742-755, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:3:p:742-755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(08)00378-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrzej S. Kosinski & Huiman X. Barnhart, 2003. "Accounting for Nonignorable Verification Bias in Assessment of Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 163-171, March.
    2. Nandini Dendukuri & Elham Rahme & Patrick Bélisle & Lawrence Joseph, 2004. "Bayesian Sample Size Determination for Prevalence and Diagnostic Test Studies in the Absence of a Gold Standard Test," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 388-397, June.
    3. Nofuentes, Jose Antonio Roldan & del Castillo, Juan de Dios Luna, 2006. "Comparing two binary diagnostic tests in the presence of verification bias," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 1551-1564, March.
    4. J. A. Roldan Nofuentes & J. D. Luna Del Castillo, 2007. "Risk of Error and the Kappa Coefficient of a Binary Diagnostic Test in the Presence of Partial Verification," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(8), pages 887-898.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Powers, Stephanie & Gerlach, Richard & Stamey, James, 2010. "Bayesian variable selection for Poisson regression with underreported responses," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3289-3299, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes & Saad Bouh Regad, 2021. "Estimation of the Average Kappa Coefficient of a Binary Diagnostic Test in the Presence of Partial Verification," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Danping Liu & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2013. "Covariate Adjustment in Estimating the Area Under ROC Curve with Partially Missing Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 91-100, March.
    3. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    4. Frederico Z. Poleto & Julio M. Singer & Carlos Daniel Paulino, 2011. "Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 1207-1222, April.
    5. Geoffrey Jones & Wesley O. Johnson & Timothy E. Hanson & Ronald Christensen, 2010. "Identifiability of Models for Multiple Diagnostic Testing in the Absence of a Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 855-863, September.
    6. Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere & Kevin Wilson & Sara Graziadio & Luke Vale & A Joy Allen, 2019. "Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, October.
    7. M. Rosário Oliveira & Ana Subtil & Luzia Gonçalves, 2020. "Common Medical and Statistical Problems: The Dilemma of the Sample Size Calculation for Sensitivity and Specificity Estimation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Selin Merdan & Christine L. Barnett & Brian T. Denton & James E. Montie & David C. Miller, 2021. "OR Practice–Data Analytics for Optimal Detection of Metastatic Prostate Cancer," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 774-794, May.
    9. Paul S. Albert, 2007. "Imputation Approaches for Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy for Multiple Tests from Partially Verified Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 947-957, September.
    10. Beavers, Daniel P. & Stamey, James D., 2012. "Bayesian sample size determination for binary regression with a misclassified covariate and no gold standard," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 2574-2582.
    11. Stamey, James D. & Boese, Doyle H. & Young, Dean M., 2008. "Confidence intervals for parameters of two diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 1335-1346, January.
    12. Martinez, Edson Zangiacomi & Alberto Achcar, Jorge & Louzada-Neto, Francisco, 2006. "Estimators of sensitivity and specificity in the presence of verification bias: A Bayesian approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 601-611, November.
    13. Paul Gustafson & Sander Greenland, 2006. "The Performance of Random Coefficient Regression in Accounting for Residual Confounding," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 760-768, September.
    14. Manuela Buzoianu & Joseph B. Kadane, 2009. "Optimal Bayesian Design for Patient Selection in a Clinical Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 953-961, September.
    15. Paul Gustafson, 2006. "Sample size implications when biases are modelled rather than ignored," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 865-881, October.
    16. Luzia Gonçalves & M. Rosário de Oliveira & Cláudia Pascoal & Ana Pires, 2012. "Sample size for estimating a binomial proportion: comparison of different methods," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(11), pages 2453-2473, July.
    17. Zhuoyu Wang & Nandini Dendukuri & Madhukar Pai & Lawrence Joseph, 2017. "Taking Costs and Diagnostic Test Accuracy into Account When Designing Prevalence Studies: An Application to Childhood Tuberculosis Prevalence," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 922-929, November.
    18. Paul Gustafson, 2007. "Measurement error modelling with an approximate instrumental variable," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 797-815, November.
    19. Richard M. Golden & Steven S. Henley & Halbert White & T. Michael Kashner, 2019. "Consequences of Model Misspecification for Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Missing Data," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, September.
    20. Stamey, James & Gerlach, Richard, 2007. "Bayesian sample size determination for case-control studies with misclassification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(6), pages 2982-2992, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:3:p:742-755. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.