Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(2):e32058.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032058. Epub 2012 Feb 13.

The cost-effectiveness of reclassification sampling for prevalence estimation

Airat Bekmetjev  1 , Dirk VanBruggen, Brian McLellan, Benjamin DeWinkle, Eric Lunderberg, Nathan Tintle
Affiliations

The cost-effectiveness of reclassification sampling for prevalence estimation

Airat Bekmetjev et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

Background: Typically, a two-phase (double) sampling strategy is employed when classifications are subject to error and there is a gold standard (perfect) classifier available. Two-phase sampling involves classifying the entire sample with an imperfect classifier, and a subset of the sample with the gold-standard.

Methodology/principal findings: In this paper we consider an alternative strategy termed reclassification sampling, which involves classifying individuals using the imperfect classifier more than one time. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity and prevalence are provided for reclassification sampling, when either one or two binary classifications of each individual using the imperfect classifier are available. Robustness of estimates and design decisions to model assumptions are considered. Software is provided to compute estimates and provide advice on the optimal sampling strategy.

Conclusions/significance: Reclassification sampling is shown to be cost-effective (lower standard error of estimates for the same cost) for estimating prevalence as compared to two-phase sampling in many practical situations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Tenenbein A. A double sampling scheme for estimating binomial data with misclassifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1970;65:1350–1361.
    1. McNamee R. Optimal designs of two-stage studies for estimation of sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21:3609–3625. - PubMed
    1. McNamee R. Efficiency of two-phase designs for prevalence estimation. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2003;32:1072–1078. - PubMed
    1. Nofuentes JAR, del Castillo JDL. Comparing the Likelihood Ratios of Two Binary Diagnostic Tests in the Presence of Partial Verification. Biometrical Journal. 2005;4:442–457. - PubMed
    1. Wruck LM, Yiannoutsos CT, Hughes MD. A sequential design to estimate sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic or screening test. Statistics in Medicine. 2006;25:3458–3473. - PubMed

Publication types