IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/japsta/v38y2011i6p1207-1222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data

Author

Listed:
  • Frederico Z. Poleto
  • Julio M. Singer
  • Carlos Daniel Paulino

Abstract

When missing data occur in studies designed to compare the accuracy of diagnostic tests, a common, though naive, practice is to base the comparison of sensitivity, specificity, as well as of positive and negative predictive values on some subset of the data that fits into methods implemented in standard statistical packages. Such methods are usually valid only under the strong missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption and may generate biased and less precise estimates. We review some models that use the dependence structure of the completely observed cases to incorporate the information of the partially categorized observations into the analysis and show how they may be fitted via a two-stage hybrid process involving maximum likelihood in the first stage and weighted least squares in the second. We indicate how computational subroutines written in R may be used to fit the proposed models and illustrate the different analysis strategies with observational data collected to compare the accuracy of three distinct non-invasive diagnostic methods for endometriosis. The results indicate that even when the MCAR assumption is plausible, the naive partial analyses should be avoided.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederico Z. Poleto & Julio M. Singer & Carlos Daniel Paulino, 2011. "Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 1207-1222, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:38:y:2011:i:6:p:1207-1222
    DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2010.491860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02664763.2010.491860
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02664763.2010.491860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiao-Hua Zhou & Pete Castelluccio, 2004. "Adjusting for Non-Ignorable Verification Bias in Clinical Studies for Alzheimer's Disease," UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1044, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    2. Andrzej S. Kosinski & Huiman X. Barnhart, 2003. "Accounting for Nonignorable Verification Bias in Assessment of Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 163-171, March.
    3. Charles E. Metz & Benjamin A. Herman & Cheryl A. Roe, 1998. "Statistical Comparison of Two ROC-curve Estimates Obtained from Partially-paired Datasets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 110-121, January.
    4. Geert Molenberghs & Michael G. Kenward & Els Goetghebeur, 2001. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: the Slovenian plebiscite case," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frederico Poleto & Geert Molenberghs & Carlos Paulino & Julio Singer, 2011. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete continuous data," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 20(3), pages 589-606, November.
    2. Baojiang Chen & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2011. "Doubly Robust Estimates for Binary Longitudinal Data Analysis with Missing Response and Missing Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 830-842, September.
    3. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs, 2008. "A flexible marginal modelling strategy for non‐monotone missing data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 347-373, April.
    4. Kong, Guilan & Xu, Dong-Ling & Body, Richard & Yang, Jian-Bo & Mackway-Jones, Kevin & Carley, Simon, 2012. "A belief rule-based decision support system for clinical risk assessment of cardiac chest pain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 564-573.
    5. D. Nitsch & B. L. DeStavola & S. M. B. Morton & D. A. Leon, 2006. "Linkage bias in estimating the association between childhood exposures and propensity to become a mother: an example of simple sensitivity analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 493-505, July.
    6. Shin-Soo Kang & Kenneth Koehler & Michael Larsen, 2012. "Fractional imputation for incomplete two-way contingency tables," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(5), pages 581-599, July.
    7. Selin Merdan & Christine L. Barnett & Brian T. Denton & James E. Montie & David C. Miller, 2021. "OR Practice–Data Analytics for Optimal Detection of Metastatic Prostate Cancer," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 774-794, May.
    8. Paul S. Albert, 2007. "Imputation Approaches for Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy for Multiple Tests from Partially Verified Designs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 947-957, September.
    9. Martinez, Edson Zangiacomi & Alberto Achcar, Jorge & Louzada-Neto, Francisco, 2006. "Estimators of sensitivity and specificity in the presence of verification bias: A Bayesian approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 601-611, November.
    10. Margarita Moreno-Betancur & Grégoire Rey & Aurélien Latouche, 2015. "Direct likelihood inference and sensitivity analysis for competing risks regression with missing causes of failure," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 498-507, June.
    11. Simon Sosvilla-Rivero & Pedro Rodriguez, 2010. "Linkages in international stock markets: evidence from a classification procedure," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(16), pages 2081-2089.
    12. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Aerts & Herbert Thijs & Kristel Van Steen, 2003. "A Local Influence Approach Applied to Binary Data from a Psychiatric Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 410-419, June.
    13. Manuela Buzoianu & Joseph B. Kadane, 2009. "Optimal Bayesian Design for Patient Selection in a Clinical Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 953-961, September.
    14. Joseph Hogan, 2009. "Comments on: Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 18(1), pages 59-64, May.
    15. Richard M. Golden & Steven S. Henley & Halbert White & T. Michael Kashner, 2019. "Consequences of Model Misspecification for Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Missing Data," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Danping Liu & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2010. "A Model for Adjusting for Nonignorable Verification Bias in Estimation of the ROC Curve and Its Area with Likelihood-Based Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1119-1128, December.
    17. Danping Liu & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2013. "Covariate Adjustment in Estimating the Area Under ROC Curve with Partially Missing Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 91-100, March.
    18. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    19. Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Geert Molenberghs & Geert Verbeke, 2009. "A multifaceted sensitivity analysis of the Slovenian public opinion survey data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(2), pages 171-196, May.
    20. Mauricio Sadinle & Jerome P. Reiter, 2017. "Itemwise conditionally independent nonresponse modelling for incomplete multivariate data," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 104(1), pages 207-220.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:38:y:2011:i:6:p:1207-1222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.