↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for misclassification bias of binary outcomes due to underscreening: a sensitivity analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accounting for misclassification bias of binary outcomes due to underscreening: a sensitivity analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0447-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nanhua Zhang, Si Cheng, Lilliam Ambroggio, Todd A. Florin, Maurizio Macaluso

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are performed in a subset of the population who are at higher risk, resulting in undiagnosed cases among those who do not receive the test. This poses a challenge for estimating the prevalence of the disease in the study population, and also for studying the risk factors for the disease. We formulate this problem as a missing data problem because the disease status is unknown for those who do not receive the test. We propose a Bayesian selection model which models the joint distribution of the disease outcome and whether testing was received. The sensitivity analysis allows us to assess how the association of the risk factors with the disease outcome as well as the disease prevalence change with the sensitivity parameter. We illustrated our model using a retrospective cohort study of children with asthma exacerbation that were evaluated for pneumonia in the emergency department. Our model found that female gender, having fever during ED or at triage, and having severe hypoxia are significantly associated with having radiographic pneumonia. In addition, simulation studies demonstrate that the Bayesian selection model works well even under circumstances when both the disease prevalence and the screening proportion is low. The Bayesian selection model is a viable tool to consider for estimating the disease prevalence and in studying risk factors of the disease, when only a subset of the target population receive the test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 13%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2019.
All research outputs
#15,485,255
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,522
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,511
of 439,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#34
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.