Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality

By Deborah H Glueck, Molly M Lamb, Colin I O'Donnell, Brandy M Ringham, John T Brinton, Keith E Muller, John M Lewin, Todd A Alonzo and Etta D Pisano
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: BioMed Central
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (2001). A proposed design and analysis for comparing digital and analog mammography: special ROC methods for cancer screening.
  2. (1969). Calculus: Multivariable Calculus and Linear Algebra, With Applications to Differential Equations and Probability Volume II. Second edition.
  3. (1988). Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics
  4. (2002). Cutter GR: Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.
  5. (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
  6. (2008). for the ACRIN 6666 Investigators: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
  7. (1983). Greenes RA: Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics
  8. (1984). Greenes RA: Construction of receiver operating characteristic curves when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Med Decis Making
  9. (2008). JP: A non-inferiority test for diagnostic accuracy based on the paired partial areas under ROC curves. Stat Med
  10. Kronman HA: New approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data.
  11. (1988). McNeil BJ: Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology
  12. (2005). MS: Assessing accuracy of a continuous screening test in the presence of verification bias.
  13. (2002). Pre-publication history The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
  14. (2004). Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med
  15. (1988). The robustness of the 'binormal' assumptions used in fitting ROC curves. Med Decis Making
  16. (2003). The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Test for Classification and Prediction
  17. (2005). Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests. Stat Med
  18. (2000). Zhou X-H: ROC curve estimation when covariates affect the verification process. Biometrics

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.