• Leni Kang, Shaokai Zhang, Fanghui Zhao, and Youlin Qiao.
• Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Cancer Institute of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
• Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2014 Mar 1;35(3):329-32.

AbstractTo evaluate and adjust the verification bias existed in the screening or diagnostic tests. Inverse-probability weighting method was used to adjust the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic tests, with an example of cervical cancer screening used to introduce the Compare Tests package in R software which could be implemented. Sensitivity and specificity calculated from the traditional method and maximum likelihood estimation method were compared to the results from Inverse-probability weighting method in the random-sampled example. The true sensitivity and specificity of the HPV self-sampling test were 83.53% (95%CI:74.23-89.93)and 85.86% (95%CI: 84.23-87.36). In the analysis of data with randomly missing verification by gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity calculated by traditional method were 90.48% (95%CI:80.74-95.56)and 71.96% (95%CI:68.71-75.00), respectively. The adjusted sensitivity and specificity under the use of Inverse-probability weighting method were 82.25% (95% CI:63.11-92.62) and 85.80% (95% CI: 85.09-86.47), respectively, whereas they were 80.13% (95%CI:66.81-93.46)and 85.80% (95%CI: 84.20-87.41) under the maximum likelihood estimation method. The inverse-probability weighting method could effectively adjust the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test when verification bias existed, especially when complex sampling appeared.

8 keywords...

hide…