ArticleStatistics in medicine2014
Prevalence estimation subject to misclassification: the mis-substitution bias and some remedies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Group testing can improve the cost-efficiency of prospective-retrospective biomarker studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Bias Correction in Estimating Proportions by Imperfect Pooled Testing.Journal of agricultural, biological, and environmental statistics · 2021Article
- A methodology for deriving the sensitivity of pooled testing, based on viral load progression and pooling dilution.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Efficient methods for the estimation of the multinomial parameter for the two-trait group testing model.Electronic journal of statistics · 2019Article
- Group testing regression models with dilution submodels.Statistics in medicine · 2017Article
- Optimal group testing designs for estimating prevalence with uncertain testing errors.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2017Article
- Estimating the prevalence of multiple diseases from two-stage hierarchical pooling.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We consider the problem of estimating the prevalence of a disease under a group testing framework. Because assays are usually imperfect, misclassification of disease status is a major challenge in prevalence estimation. To account for possible misclassification, it is usually assumed that the sensitivity and specificity of the assay are known and independent of the group size. This assumption is often questionable, and substitution of incorrect values of an assay's sensitivity and specificity can result in a large bias in the prevalence estimate, which we refer to as the mis-substitution bias. In this article, we propose simple designs and methods for prevalence estimation that do not require known values of assay sensitivity and specificity. If a gold standard test is available, it can be applied to a validation subsample to yield information on the imperfect assay's sensitivity and specificity. When a gold standard is unavailable, it is possible to estimate assay sensitivity and specificity, either as unknown constants or as specified functions of the group size, from group testing data with varying group size. We develop methods for estimating parameters and for finding or approximating optimal designs, and perform extensive simulation experiments to evaluate and compare the different designs. An example concerning human immunodeficiency virus infection is used to illustrate the validation subsample design.
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.