» Articles » PMID: 36428900

Partial Verification Bias Correction Using Inverse Probability Bootstrap Sampling for Binary Diagnostic Tests

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2022 Nov 26
PMID 36428900
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Verification Bias Correction in Endometrial Abnormalities in Infertile Women Referred to Royan Institute Using Statistical Methods.

Niknejad F, Ahmadi F, Roudbari M Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2024; 37:122.

PMID: 38435832 PMC: 10907048. DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.37.122.

References
1.
Day E, Eldred-Evans D, Prevost A, Ahmed H, Fiorentino F . Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):70. PMC: 8932251. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01481-w. View

2.
de Groot J, Janssen K, Zwinderman A, Bossuyt P, Reitsma J, Moons K . Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods. Ann Epidemiol. 2010; 21(2):139-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.004. View

3.
Nahorniak M, Larsen D, Volk C, Jordan C . Using Inverse Probability Bootstrap Sampling to Eliminate Sample Induced Bias in Model Based Analysis of Unequal Probability Samples. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6):e0131765. PMC: 4488419. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131765. View

4.
Robles C, Rudzite D, Polaka I, Sjomina O, Tzivian L, Kikuste I . Assessment of Serum Pepsinogens with and without Co-Testing with Gastrin-17 in Gastric Cancer Risk Assessment-Results from the GISTAR Pilot Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(7). PMC: 9325279. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071746. View

5.
Zhou X . Effect of verification bias on positive and negative predictive values. Stat Med. 1994; 13(17):1737-45. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780131705. View