ArticlePloS one2012
The cost-effectiveness of reclassification sampling for prevalence estimation.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTypically, a two-phase (double) sampling strategy is employed when classifications are subject to error and there is a gold standard (perfect) classifier available. Two-phase sampling involves classifying the entire sample with an imperfect classifier, and a subset of the sample with the gold-standard. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsIn this paper we consider an alternative strategy termed reclassification sampling, which involves classifying individuals using the imperfect classifier more than one time. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity and prevalence are provided for reclassification sampling, when either one or two binary classifications of each individual using the imperfect classifier are available. Robustness of estimates and design decisions to model assumptions are considered. Software is provided to compute estimates and provide advice on the optimal sampling strategy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Reclassification sampling is shown to be cost-effective (lower standard error of estimates for the same cost) for estimating prevalence as compared to two-phase sampling in many practical situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.