PortalPublikationenPartial verification bias and incorporation bias affected ac...

Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard

Standard

Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard. / Karch, Annika; Koch, Armin; Zapf, Antonia; Zerr, Inga; Karch, André.

in: J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, Jahrgang 78, 10.2016, S. 73-82.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Karch, A, Koch, A, Zapf, A, Zerr, I & Karch, A 2016, 'Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard', J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, Jg. 78, S. 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022

APA

Karch, A., Koch, A., Zapf, A., Zerr, I., & Karch, A. (2016). Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard. J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, 78, 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022

Vancouver

Karch A, Koch A, Zapf A, Zerr I, Karch A. Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard. J CLIN EPIDEMIOL. 2016 Okt;78:73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022

Bibtex

@article{cba5691be92344ed92a11a62456d7f69,
title = "Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To investigate how choice of gold standard biases estimates of sensitivity and specificity in studies reassessing the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers that are already part of a lifetime composite gold standard (CGS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a simulation study based on the real-life example of the biomarker {"}protein 14-3-3{"} used for diagnosing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Three different types of gold standard were compared: perfect gold standard {"}autopsy{"} (available in a small fraction only; prone to partial verification bias), lifetime CGS (including the biomarker under investigation; prone to incorporation bias), and {"}best available{"} gold standard (autopsy if available, otherwise CGS).RESULTS: Sensitivity was unbiased when comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy but overestimated when using CGS or {"}best available{"} gold standard. Specificity of 14-3-3 was underestimated in scenarios comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy (up to 24%). In contrast, overestimation (up to 20%) was observed for specificity compared with CGS; this could be reduced to 0-10% when using the {"}best available{"} gold standard.CONCLUSION: Choice of gold standard affects considerably estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Using the {"}best available{"} gold standard (autopsy where available, otherwise CGS) leads to valid estimates of specificity, whereas sensitivity is estimated best when tested against autopsy alone.",
keywords = "Autopsy, Bias, Biomarkers, Computer Simulation, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Journal Article",
author = "Annika Karch and Armin Koch and Antonia Zapf and Inga Zerr and Andr{\'e} Karch",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2016",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022",
language = "English",
volume = "78",
pages = "73--82",
journal = "J CLIN EPIDEMIOL",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Partial verification bias and incorporation bias affected accuracy estimates of diagnostic studies for biomarkers that were part of an existing composite gold standard

AU - Karch, Annika

AU - Koch, Armin

AU - Zapf, Antonia

AU - Zerr, Inga

AU - Karch, André

N1 - Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2016/10

Y1 - 2016/10

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate how choice of gold standard biases estimates of sensitivity and specificity in studies reassessing the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers that are already part of a lifetime composite gold standard (CGS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a simulation study based on the real-life example of the biomarker "protein 14-3-3" used for diagnosing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Three different types of gold standard were compared: perfect gold standard "autopsy" (available in a small fraction only; prone to partial verification bias), lifetime CGS (including the biomarker under investigation; prone to incorporation bias), and "best available" gold standard (autopsy if available, otherwise CGS).RESULTS: Sensitivity was unbiased when comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy but overestimated when using CGS or "best available" gold standard. Specificity of 14-3-3 was underestimated in scenarios comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy (up to 24%). In contrast, overestimation (up to 20%) was observed for specificity compared with CGS; this could be reduced to 0-10% when using the "best available" gold standard.CONCLUSION: Choice of gold standard affects considerably estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Using the "best available" gold standard (autopsy where available, otherwise CGS) leads to valid estimates of specificity, whereas sensitivity is estimated best when tested against autopsy alone.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To investigate how choice of gold standard biases estimates of sensitivity and specificity in studies reassessing the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers that are already part of a lifetime composite gold standard (CGS).STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a simulation study based on the real-life example of the biomarker "protein 14-3-3" used for diagnosing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Three different types of gold standard were compared: perfect gold standard "autopsy" (available in a small fraction only; prone to partial verification bias), lifetime CGS (including the biomarker under investigation; prone to incorporation bias), and "best available" gold standard (autopsy if available, otherwise CGS).RESULTS: Sensitivity was unbiased when comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy but overestimated when using CGS or "best available" gold standard. Specificity of 14-3-3 was underestimated in scenarios comparing 14-3-3 with autopsy (up to 24%). In contrast, overestimation (up to 20%) was observed for specificity compared with CGS; this could be reduced to 0-10% when using the "best available" gold standard.CONCLUSION: Choice of gold standard affects considerably estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Using the "best available" gold standard (autopsy where available, otherwise CGS) leads to valid estimates of specificity, whereas sensitivity is estimated best when tested against autopsy alone.

KW - Autopsy

KW - Bias

KW - Biomarkers

KW - Computer Simulation

KW - Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome

KW - Diagnostic Tests, Routine

KW - Humans

KW - Reference Standards

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.022

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 27107877

VL - 78

SP - 73

EP - 82

JO - J CLIN EPIDEMIOL

JF - J CLIN EPIDEMIOL

SN - 0895-4356

ER -