A Bayesian Analysis With Informative Prior on Disease Prevalence for Predicting Missing Values Due To Verification Bias
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.296Keywords:
Bayesian inference, Verification Bias, Informative Prior, MCMC Simulation, missing dataAbstract
AIM: Verification bias is one of the major problems encountered in diagnostic accuracy studies. It occurs when a standard test performed on a non-representative subsample of subjects which have undergone the diagnostic test. In this study we extend a Bayesian model to correct this bias.
METHODS: The study population is patients that have undergone at least two repeated failed IVF/ICSI (in vitro fertilization/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles. Patients were screened using ultrasonography and those with polyps were recommended for hysteroscopy. A Bayesian modeling was applied on mechanism of missing data using an informative prior on disease prevalence. The parameters of the model were estimated through Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.
RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were screened, 47 of which had polyps. Those with polyps were strongly recommended to undergo hysteroscopy, 47/47 decide to have a hysteroscopy and in 37/47 polyps confirmed. None of the 191 patients with no polyps detected in ultrasonography underwent a hysteroscopy. A model using Bayesian approach was applied with informative prior on polyp prevalence. False and true negatives were estimated in the Bayesian framework. The false negative was obtained 14 and 177 true negatives were obtained, so sensitivity and specificity was estimated easily after estimating the missing data. Sensitivity and specificity were equal to 74% and 94% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Bayesian analyses with informative prior seem to be powerful tools in the simulation of experimental space.Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2004; 140(3):189. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00010 PMid:14757617
Lu Y, Dendukuri N, Schiller I, Joseph L. A Bayesian approach to simultaneously adjusting for verification and reference standard bias in diagnostic test studies. Stat Med. 2010; 29(24):2532-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4018 PMid:20799249
Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics. 1983; 207-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530820 PMid:6871349
de Groot JA, Janssen KJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Moons KG. Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods. Annals of epidemiology. 2011; 21(2):139-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.004 PMid:21109454
Martinez EZ, Alberto Achcar J, Louzada-Neto F. Estimators of sensitivity and specificity in the presence of verification bias: A Bayesian approach. Computational statistics & data analysis. 2006; 51(2):601-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2005.12.021
Kosinski AS, Barnhart HX. Accounting for nonignorable verification bias in assessment of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 2003; 59(1):163-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0420.00019
Buzoianu M, Kadane JB. Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic test evaluation: a Bayesian approach. Statistics in medicine. 2008; 27(13):2453-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3099 PMid:17979150
Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 10(1):59-62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.10010059.x PMid:9263425
Crosignani PG, Rubin BL. Optimal use of infertility diagnostic tests and treatments. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(3):723-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.3.723 PMid:10686227
Seinera P, Maccario S, Visentin L, DiGregorio A. Hysteroscopy in an Ivfâ€Er Program: Clinical experience with 360 infertile patients. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 1988; 67(2):135-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016348809004185 PMid:3176927
Golan A, Eilat E, Ron el R, Herman A, Soffer Y, Bukovsky I. Hysteroscopy is superior to hysterosalpingography in infertility investigation. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 1996; 75(7):654-6. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349609054692 PMid:8822660
Golan A, Ron-El R, Herman A, Soffer Y, Bukovsky I, Caspi E. Diagnostic hysteroscopy: its value in an in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer unit. Human Reproduction. 1992; 7(10):1433. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137589 PMid:1291572
Liu J, Gustafson P, Cherry N, Burstyn I. Bayesian analysis of a matched case–control study with expert prior information on both the misclassification of exposure and the exposure–disease association. Statistics in medicine. 2009; 28(27):3411-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3694 PMid:19691019
Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS Version 1.4 User Manual, 2005.
Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions. Statistics in medicine. 2009; 28(25):3049-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3680 PMid:19630097
Curtis SM. BUGS code for item response theory. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010; 36(1):1-34.
Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern H, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
