Search

Epidemiologic screening programs often make use of tests with small, but nonzero probabilities of misdiagnosis. In this article, we assume the target population is finite with a fixed number of true cases, and that we apply an imperfect test with known sensitivity and specificity to a sample of individuals from the population. In this setting, we propose an enhanced inferential approach for use in conjunction with sampling-based bias-corrected prevalence estimation. While ignoring the finite nature of the population can yield markedly conservative estimates, direct application of a standard finite population correction (FPC) conversely leads to underestimation of variance. We uncover a way to leverage the typical FPC indirectly toward valid statistical inference. In particular, we derive a readily estimable extra variance component induced by misclassification in this specific but arguably common diagnostic testing scenario. Our approach yields a standard error estimate that properly captures the sampling variability of the usual bias-corrected maximum likelihood estimator of disease prevalence. Finally, we develop an adapted Bayesian credible interval for the true prevalence that offers improved frequentist properties (i.e., coverage and width) relative to a Wald-type confidence interval. We report the simulation results to demonstrate the enhanced performance of the proposed inferential methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides understanding of the most important information that clinicians need to know about meta-analyses. Topics discussed are dispersion of true effects of size and dispersion secondary to sampling error, equation for the prediction interval and its use in the practice of clinical medicine as well as in choosing among treatments, and distinction of prediction from confidence interval.

Evaluating the importance and the strength of empirical evidence requires asking three questions: First, what are the practical implications of the findings? Second, how precise are the estimates? Confidence intervals provide an intuitive way to communicate precision. Although nontechnical audiences often misinterpret confidence intervals (CIs), I argue that the result is less dangerous than the misunderstandings that arise from hypothesis tests. Third, is the model correctly specified? The validity of point estimates and CIs depends on the soundness of the underlying model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]