Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 123

1.

Bivariate meta-analysis of predictive values of diagnostic tests can be an alternative to bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;65(10):1088-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.006. Epub 2012 Jun 27.

PMID:
22742916
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
2.

Differences between univariate and bivariate models for summarizing diagnostic accuracy may not be large.

Simel DL, Bossuyt PM.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Dec;62(12):1292-300. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.007. Epub 2009 May 17.

PMID:
19447007
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3.

An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary.

Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, Bachmann LM.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;61(11):1095-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.09.013. Review.

PMID:
19208372
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4.

Clinical utility of serologic testing for celiac disease in ontario: an evidence-based analysis.

Health Quality Ontario.

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(21):1-111. Epub 2010 Dec 1.

PMID:
23074399
[PubMed]
Free PMC Article
5.

Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis.

Macaskill P.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Sep;57(9):925-32.

PMID:
15504635
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease.

Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, Hillis GS, Fraser C.

Health Technol Assess. 2008 May;12(17):iii-iv, ix-143. Review.

PMID:
18462576
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
7.

An Empirical Assessment of Bivariate Methods for Meta-Analysis of Test Accuracy [Internet].

Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Schmid C.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Nov.

8.

Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.

Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90. Review.

PMID:
16168343
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9.

Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard".

Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, Coleman CI, Griffith L, Santaguida PL, Vandermeer B, Fu R.

J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1:S56-66. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1.

PMID:
22648676
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
10.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: alternative parameterizations and model selection.

Chu H, Nie L, Cole SR, Poole C.

Stat Med. 2009 Aug 15;28(18):2384-99. doi: 10.1002/sim.3627.

PMID:
19499551
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic test data: a bivariate Bayesian modeling approach.

Verde PE.

Stat Med. 2010 Dec 30;29(30):3088-102. doi: 10.1002/sim.4055.

PMID:
21170904
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12.

Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC: methodology and empirical evaluation in 50 meta-analyses.

Menke J.

Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):692-701. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13475719. Epub 2013 Mar 8.

PMID:
23475941
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13.

A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P.

Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(12):1-113, iii. Review.

PMID:
15774235
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
14.

A mixed model approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies with binary test outcome.

Doebler P, Holling H, Böhning D.

Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):418-36. doi: 10.1037/a0028091. Epub 2012 May 14. Erratum in: Psychol Methods. 2013 Mar;18(1):120.

PMID:
22582866
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15.

The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values.

Shiu SY, Gatsonis C.

Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2008 Jul 13;366(1874):2313-33. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0043.

PMID:
18407893
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
16.

Associating explanatory variables with summary receiver operating characteristic curves in diagnostic meta-analysis.

Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Stijnen T.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Dec;62(12):1284-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.002. Epub 2009 Apr 23.

PMID:
19398297
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17.

Multivariate random-effects approach: for meta-analysis of cancer staging studies.

Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J.

Acad Radiol. 2007 Aug;14(8):974-84.

PMID:
17659244
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18.

[Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].

Biggeri A, Bellini P, Terracini B; Italian MISA Group.

Epidemiol Prev. 2001 Mar-Apr;25(2 Suppl):1-71. Italian.

PMID:
11515188
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy.

Leeflang MM.

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Feb;20(2):105-13. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12474. Review.

PMID:
24274632
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20.

Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds.

Hamza TH, Arends LR, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Nov 10;9:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-73.

PMID:
19903336
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk