ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Partial Verification Bias Correction Using Inverse Probability Bootstrap Sampling for Binary Diagnostic Tests.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association and incremental predictive value of preoperative AISI and CALLY for postoperative pulmonary complications after McKeown esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Partial verification bias correction using scaled inverse probability resampling for binary diagnostic tests.PloS one · 2025Article
- Verification Bias Correction in Endometrial Abnormalities in Infertile Women Referred to Royan Institute Using Statistical Methods.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In medical care, it is important to evaluate any new diagnostic test in the form of diagnostic accuracy studies. These new tests are compared to gold standard tests, where the performance of binary diagnostic tests is usually measured by sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp). However, these accuracy measures are often biased owing to selective verification of the patients, known as partial verification bias (PVB). Inverse probability bootstrap (IPB) sampling is a general method to correct sampling bias in model-based analysis and produces debiased data for analysis. However, its utility in PVB correction has not been investigated before. The objective of this study was to investigate IPB in the context of PVB correction under the missing-at-random assumption for binary diagnostic tests. IPB was adapted for PVB correction, and tested and compared with existing methods using simulated and clinical data sets. The results indicated that IPB is accurate for Sn and Sp estimation as it showed low bias. However, IPB was less precise than existing methods as indicated by the higher standard error (SE). Despite this issue, it is recommended to use IPB when subsequent analysis with full data analytic methods is expected. Further studies must be conducted to reduce the SE.
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.