Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1998; 37(03): 307-308
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634525
Commentary
Schattauer GmbH

A Comment on Gefeller and Brenner's Chance-Corrected Sensitivity and Specificity

J. Jamart
1   Center of Biostatistics and Medical Documentation, Catholic University of Louvain, Mont-Godinne Hospital, Yvoir, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

 

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Connell FA, Koepsell TD. Measures of gain in certainty from a diagnostic test. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 744-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kraemer HC. The robustness of common measures of 2 x 2 association to bias due to misclassifications. Am Stat 1985; 39: 286-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kraemer HC. Assessment of 2 x 2 associations: generalization of signal-detection methodology. Am Stat 1988; 42: 37-49.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kraemer HC, Bloch DA. Kappa coefficients in epidemiology: an appraisal of a reappraisal. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 959-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Coughlin SS, Pickle LW. Sensitivity and specificity-like measures of the validity of a diagnostic test that are corrected for chance agreement. Epidemiology 1992; 3: 178-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jamart J. Chance-corrected sensitivity and specificity for three-zone diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1035-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jamart J. Rejoinder: chance-corrected sensitivity and specificity for three-zone diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 206.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gefeller O, Brenner H. How to correct for chance agreement in the estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests. Meth Inform Med 1994; 33: 180-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brenner H, Gefeller O. Chance-corrected measures of the validity of a binary diagnostic test. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 627-33.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Diamond GA, Denton TA. Alternative perspectives on the biased foundations of medical technology assessment. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 455-64.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Diamond GA. Monkey business. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57: 471-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar