The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs
Abstract
Summary. Positive and negative predictive values of a diagnostic test are key clinically relevant measures of test accuracy. Surprisingly, statistical methods for comparing tests with regard to these parameters have not been available for the most common study design in which each test is applied to each study individual. In this paper, we propose a statistic for comparing the predictive values of two diagnostic tests using this paired study design. The proposed statistic is a score statistic derived from a marginal regression model and bears some relation to McNemar's statistic. As McNemar's statistic can be used to compare sensitivities and specificities of diagnostic tests, parameters that condition on disease status, our statistic can be considered as an analog of McNemar's test for the problem of comparing predictive values, parameters that condition on test outcome. We report on the results of a simulation study designed to examine the properties of this test under a variety of conditions. The method is illustrated with data from a study of methods for diagnosis of coronary artery disease.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages
McNemar, Q. (1947) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02295996 · Cited by 4,754
Cited by
Cell-free DNA Analysis for Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy
Norton, M. E., Jacobsson, B., Swamy, G. K., Laurent, L. C., Ranzini, A. C., Brar, H., Tomlinson, M. W., Pereira, L., Spitz, J. L., Hollemon, D., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1407349 · Cited by 817
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy
Bluemke, D. A. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.22.2735 · Cited by 513
Allgaier, A.-K., Pietsch, K., Frühe, B., Sigl-Glöckner, J., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21971 · Cited by 235
Deep Learning for Chest Radiograph Diagnosis in the Emergency Department
Hwang, E. J., Nam, J. G., Lim, W. H., Park, S. J., Jeong, Y. S., Kang, J. H., Hong, E. K., Kim, T. M., Goo, J. M., Park, S., et al. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019191225 · Cited by 164
Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition.
Brockmeier, A. J., Ju, M., Przybyła, P., & Ananiadou, S. (2019) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-019-0992-8 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Leisenring, W., Alono, T., & Pepe, M. S.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 345-351
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0420
- OpenAlex
- W1986873494
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00345.x
- The paper
- Leisenring, W., Alono, T., & Pepe, M. S. (2000). Comparisons of Predictive Values of Binary Medical Diagnostic Tests for Paired Designs. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00345.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.