Suppr超能文献

比较配对连续检测的试验中的偏倚可能会导致研究人员选择错误的筛查方式。

Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality.

作者信息

Glueck Deborah H, Lamb Molly M, O'Donnell Colin I, Ringham Brandy M, Brinton John T, Muller Keith E, Lewin John M, Alonzo Todd A, Pisano Etta D

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, CO, USA.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jan 20;9:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two continuous screening tests, a common approach is to test the difference between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. After study participants are screened with both screening tests, the disease status is determined as accurately as possible, either by an invasive, sensitive and specific secondary test, or by a less invasive, but less sensitive approach. For most participants, disease status is approximated through the less sensitive approach. The invasive test must be limited to the fraction of the participants whose results on either or both screening tests exceed a threshold of suspicion, or who develop signs and symptoms of the disease after the initial screening tests. The limitations of this study design lead to a bias in the ROC curves we call paired screening trial bias. This bias reflects the synergistic effects of inappropriate reference standard bias, differential verification bias, and partial verification bias. The absence of a gold reference standard leads to inappropriate reference standard bias. When different reference standards are used to ascertain disease status, it creates differential verification bias. When only suspicious screening test scores trigger a sensitive and specific secondary test, the result is a form of partial verification bias.

METHODS

For paired screening tests with bivariate normally distributed scores, we give formulae and programs to quantify the effect of paired screening trial bias on a paired comparison of area under the curves. We fix the prevalence of disease, and the chance a diseased subject manifests signs and symptoms. We derive the formulas for true sensitivity and specificity, and those for the sensitivity and specificity observed by the study investigator.

RESULTS

The observed area under the ROC curves is quite different from the true area under the ROC curves. The typical direction of the bias is a strong inflation in sensitivity, paired with a concomitant slight deflation of specificity.

CONCLUSION

In paired trials of screening tests, when area under the ROC curve is used as the metric, bias may lead researchers to make the wrong decision as to which screening test is better.

摘要

背景

为比较两种连续筛查试验的诊断准确性,常用方法是检验受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积之间的差异。在研究参与者接受两种筛查试验后,通过侵入性、敏感且特异的二次试验或侵入性较小但敏感性较低的方法尽可能准确地确定疾病状态。对于大多数参与者,通过敏感性较低的方法来大致确定疾病状态。侵入性试验必须仅限于那些在一种或两种筛查试验中的结果超过可疑阈值,或者在初始筛查试验后出现疾病体征和症状的参与者。这种研究设计的局限性导致我们所称的配对筛查试验偏倚,使ROC曲线产生偏倚。这种偏倚反映了不适当参考标准偏倚、差异验证偏倚和部分验证偏倚的协同效应。缺乏金标准参考会导致不适当参考标准偏倚。当使用不同参考标准来确定疾病状态时,会产生差异验证偏倚。当仅可疑的筛查试验分数触发敏感且特异的二次试验时,结果就是一种部分验证偏倚。

方法

对于具有双变量正态分布分数的配对筛查试验,我们给出公式和程序,以量化配对筛查试验偏倚对曲线下面积配对比较的影响。我们固定疾病患病率以及患病受试者出现体征和症状的概率。我们推导了真敏感性和特异性的公式,以及研究人员观察到的敏感性和特异性的公式。

结果

观察到的ROC曲线下面积与真实的ROC曲线下面积有很大差异。偏倚的典型方向是敏感性大幅升高,同时特异性略有降低。

结论

在筛查试验的配对试验中,当将ROC曲线下面积用作指标时,偏倚可能会导致研究人员在判断哪种筛查试验更好时做出错误决策。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验