Hello,
I have been using the roccomp (or rocgold) instruction to compare two AUCROC but I cannot trust the result I get, specially in the following example (I show you the output). I have done the same analysis using Epidat software and the conclusion is that there are no differences between the 2 curves (Chi2=0.4241; df=1; P=0.515) and I am more confident with this result.
Do you think there is any problem with STATA calculations?
Thank you very much.
Sara
. roccomp hpv_mrna hpv_p16 p16_tota, graph summary
ROC -Asymptotic Normal--
Obs Area Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
hpv_p16 786 0.9328 0.0210 0.89170 0.97397
p16_tota 786 0.9134 0.0213 0.87163 0.95510
Ho: area(hpv_p16) = area(p16_tota)
chi2(1) = 29.09 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
. rocgold hpv_mrna hpv_p16 p16_tota, graph summary
ROC Bonferroni
Area Std. Err. chi2 df Pr>chi2 Pr>chi2
hpv_p16 (standard) 0.9328 0.0210
p16_tota 0.9134 0.0213 29.0941 1 0.0000 0.0000
note: 2 observations ignored because of missing values.
I have been using the roccomp (or rocgold) instruction to compare two AUCROC but I cannot trust the result I get, specially in the following example (I show you the output). I have done the same analysis using Epidat software and the conclusion is that there are no differences between the 2 curves (Chi2=0.4241; df=1; P=0.515) and I am more confident with this result.
Do you think there is any problem with STATA calculations?
Thank you very much.
Sara
. roccomp hpv_mrna hpv_p16 p16_tota, graph summary
ROC -Asymptotic Normal--
Obs Area Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
hpv_p16 786 0.9328 0.0210 0.89170 0.97397
p16_tota 786 0.9134 0.0213 0.87163 0.95510
Ho: area(hpv_p16) = area(p16_tota)
chi2(1) = 29.09 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
. rocgold hpv_mrna hpv_p16 p16_tota, graph summary
ROC Bonferroni
Area Std. Err. chi2 df Pr>chi2 Pr>chi2
hpv_p16 (standard) 0.9328 0.0210
p16_tota 0.9134 0.0213 29.0941 1 0.0000 0.0000
note: 2 observations ignored because of missing values.
Comment