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
. 2022 Aug 2;31(8):1517-1520.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0232.

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval

Affiliations

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval

Jessica Chubak et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. .

Abstract

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pepe MS, Alonzo TA. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. Biostatistics 2001; 2:249–60. - PubMed
    1. O’Sullivan JW, Banerjee A, Heneghan C, Pluddemann A. Verification bias. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23:54–5. - PubMed
    1. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’Connor E, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016; 315:2576–94. - PubMed
    1. Rosman AS, Korsten MA. Effect of Verification Bias on the Sensitivity of Fecal Occult Blood Testing: a Meta-Analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2010; 25:1211–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alonzo TA, Brinton JT, Ringham BM, Glueck DH. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification. Stat Med 2011; 30:1852–64. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types