Biostatistics Research - Statistics, Uncertainty, Probability, Modeling

Biostatistics Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Biostatistics, including details on statistics, uncertainty, probability, modeling.


Biostatistics Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Biostatistics

Books on Biostatistics

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible.

Alonzo TA, Kittelson JM

Department of Biostatistics, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 440 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 60012, Arcadia, California 91066, USA. talonzo@childrensoncologygroup.org

The accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of a new screening test can be compared with that of a standard test by applying both tests to a group of subjects in which disease status can be determined by a gold standard (GS) test. However, it is not always feasible to administer a GS test to all study subjects. For example, a study is planned to determine whether a new screening test for cervical cancer ("ThinPrep") is better than the standard test ("Pap"), and in this setting it is not feasible (or ethical) to determine disease status by biopsy in order to identify women with and without disease for participation in a study. When determination of disease status is not possible for all study subjects, the relative accuracy of two screening tests can still be estimated by using a paired screen-positive (PSP) design in which all subjects receive both screening tests, but only have the GS test if one of the screening tests is positive. Unfortunately in the cervical cancer example, the PSP design is also infeasible because it is not technically possible to administer both the ThinPrep and Pap at the same time. In this article, we describe a randomized paired screen-positive (RPSP) design in which subjects are randomized to receive one of the two screening tests initially, and only receive the other screening test and GS if the first screening test is positive. We derive maximum likelihood estimators and confidence intervals for the relative accuracy of the two screening tests, and assess the small sample behavior of these estimators using simulation studies. Sample size formulae are derived and applied to the cervical cancer screening trial example, and the efficiency of the RPSP design is compared with other designs.

Published 21 August 2006 in Biometrics, 62(2): 605-12.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Biostatistics Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Biostatistics Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)



Biostatistics Books

Biostatistics:  The Bare Essentials 3/E (Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials Biostatistics: The Bare E)

Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials 3/E (Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials Biostatistics: The Bare E)