IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metrik/v76y2013i2p239-263.html

Confidence bounds for the sensitivity lack of a less specific diagnostic test, without gold standard

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Mattner

  • Frauke Mattner

Abstract

We consider the problem of comparing two diagnostic tests based on a sample of paired test results without true state determinations, in cases where the second test can reasonably be assumed to be at least as specific as the first. For such cases, we provide two informative confidence bounds: A lower one for the prevalence times the sensitivity gain of the second test with respect to the first, and an upper one for the sensitivity of the first test. Neither conditional independence of the two tests nor perfectness of any of them needs to be assumed. An application of the proposed confidence bounds to a sample of 256 pairs of laboratory test results for toxigenic Clostridium difficile provides evidence for a dramatic sensitivity gain through first appropriately culturing C. difficile from stool samples before applying an enzyme-immuno-assay. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Mattner & Frauke Mattner, 2013. "Confidence bounds for the sensitivity lack of a less specific diagnostic test, without gold standard," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 239-263, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metrik:v:76:y:2013:i:2:p:239-263
    DOI: 10.1007/s00184-012-0385-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00184-012-0385-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00184-012-0385-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendy Leisenring & Todd Alono & Margaret Sullivan Pepe, 2000. "Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 345-351, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Angel M. Morales & Patrick Tarwater & Indika Mallawaarachchi & Alok Kumar Dwivedi & Juan B. Figueroa-Casas, 2015. "Multinomial logistic regression approach for the evaluation of binary diagnostic test in medical research," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 16(2), pages 203-222, June.
    2. A. S. Hedayat & Junhui Wang & Tu Xu, 2015. "Minimum clinically important difference in medical studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 33-41, March.
    3. Yu, Q. & Tang, W. & Ma, Y. & Gamble, S.A. & Tu, X.M., 2008. "Comparing multiple sensitivities and specificities with different diagnostic criteria: Applications to sexual abuse and sexual health research," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 27-37, September.
    4. Xueyan Mei & Zelong Liu & Ayushi Singh & Marcia Lange & Priyanka Boddu & Jingqi Q. X. Gong & Justine Lee & Cody DeMarco & Chendi Cao & Samantha Platt & Ganesh Sivakumar & Benjamin Gross & Mingqian Hua, 2023. "Interstitial lung disease diagnosis and prognosis using an AI system integrating longitudinal data," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Saad Bouh Regad & José Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes, 2021. "Global Hypothesis Test to Compare the Predictive Values of Diagnostic Tests Subject to a Case-Control Design," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Wiens, Douglas P., 2010. "Robustness of design for the testing of lack of fit and for estimation in binary response models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3371-3378, December.
    7. Alok Kumar Dwivedi & Indika Mallawaarachchi & Juan B. Figueroa-Casas & Angel M. Morales & Patrick Tarwater, 2015. "Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach For The Evaluation Of Binary Diagnostic Test In Medical Research," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 203-222, June.
    8. Xingye Qiao & Yufeng Liu, 2009. "Adaptive Weighted Learning for Unbalanced Multicategory Classification," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 159-168, March.
    9. Robert H. Lyles & John M. Williamson & Hung-Mo Lin & Charles M. Heilig, 2005. "Extending McNemar's Test: Estimation and Inference When Paired Binary Outcome Data Are Misclassified," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 287-294, March.
    10. Marta Malagón & Elizabeth Alwers & Lia Oliver & Sara Ramió-Pujol & Mireia Sánchez-Vizcaino & Joan Amoedo & Salomé de Cambra & Mariona Serra-Pagès & Antoni Castells & Xavier Aldeguer & Jesús Garcia-Gil, 2023. "Clinical performance study of a fecal bacterial signature test for colorectal cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-12, November.
    11. Dwivedi Alok Kumar & Mallawaarachchi Indika & Figueroa-Casas Juan B. & Morales Angel M. & Tarwater Patrick, 2015. "Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach for the Evaluation of Binary Diagnostic Test in Medical Research," Statistics in Transition New Series, Statistics Poland, vol. 16(2), pages 203-222, June.
    12. Scott H Lee & Matthew J Maenner & Charles M Heilig, 2019. "A comparison of machine learning algorithms for the surveillance of autism spectrum disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Roldán Nofuentes, José Antonio & Luna del Castillo, Juan de Dios & Montero Alonso, Miguel Ángel, 2012. "Global hypothesis test to simultaneously compare the predictive values of two binary diagnostic tests," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1161-1173.
    14. Peter H. Westfall & James F. Troendle & Gene Pennello, 2010. "Multiple McNemar Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1185-1191, December.
    15. José Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes & Saad Bouh Regad, 2021. "Confidence Intervals and Sample Size to Compare the Predictive Values of Two Diagnostic Tests," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:metrik:v:76:y:2013:i:2:p:239-263. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.