Estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be biased when reporting the results of the second test in a screening trial conducted in series
© Ringham et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 2 July 2009
Accepted: 11 January 2010
Published: 11 January 2010
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|2 Jul 2009||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|6 Aug 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Angel Cronin|
|20 Aug 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jørgen Hilden|
|3 Sep 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Luiz Zeferino|
|12 Dec 2009||Author responded||Author comments - Brandy Ringham|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|12 Dec 2009||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|17 Dec 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Angel Cronin|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|4 Jan 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Brandy Ringham|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|4 Jan 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|11 Jan 2010||Editorially accepted|
|11 Jan 2010||Article published||10.1186/1471-2288-10-3|
How does Open Peer Review work?
Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.