A Model for Evaluating Sensitivity and Specificity for Correlated Diagnostic Tests in Efficacy Studies with an Imperfect Reference Test

1998 ◽  
Vol 93 (443) ◽  
pp. 920-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yinsheng Qu ◽  
Alula Hadgu
2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Fati Kirakoya-Samadoulougou ◽  
Sekou Samadoulougou

Abstract Background To overcome the limitations of conventional malaria rapid diagnostic tests (cRDTs) in diagnosing malaria in patients with low parasitaemia, ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic tests (uRDTs) have recently been developed, with promising results under laboratory conditions. The current study is the first meta-analysis comparing the overall sensitivity, and specificity of newly developed ultrasensitive Plasmodium falciparum malaria RDT (Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT) with the cRDT conducted in the same field conditions. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane infectious diseases group specialized register, and African Journals Online (AJOL) were searched up to 20th April 2021. Studies with enough data to compute sensitivity and specificity of uRDT and cRDT were retrieved. A random-effect model for meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Results Overall, 15 data sets from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of the Alere™ ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 55.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.5; 65.0), while the sensitivity regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 42.9% (95% CI: 31.5; 55.2) for the cRDT performed in the same field conditions. When PCR was used as reference test, the sensitivity of uRDT was 60.4% (95% CI: 50.8; 69.2), while the sensitivity was 49.4% (95% CI: 38.2; 60.6) for the cRDT. The pooled specificity of uRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.1; 99.4), and the pooled specificity of cRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 99.3% (95% CI: 98.1; 99.7). When PCR was used as reference test the specificity of uRDT and cRDT was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1; 98.9) and 98.2% (95% CI: 95.5; 99.3). Regardless of the reference test used, the sensitivity of Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT in symptomatic patients was 72.1% (95%CI: 67.4; 76.4), while sensitivity of cRDT was 67.4% (95%CI: 57.6; 75.9). Conclusion Findings of the meta-analysis show that Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT compared to cRDT performed in the same field conditions has higher sensitivity but lower specificity although the difference is not statistically significant.


1979 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
STUART T. BROWN ◽  
HAROLD W. JAFFE ◽  
AKBAR ZAIDI ◽  
RENE FILKER ◽  
KENNETH L. HERRMANN ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. e0202499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Fuss ◽  
Humphrey Deogratias Mazigo ◽  
Dennis Tappe ◽  
Christa Kasang ◽  
Andreas Mueller

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guogen Shan ◽  
Amei Amei ◽  
Daniel Young

Sensitivity and specificity are often used to assess the performance of a diagnostic test with binary outcomes. Wald-type test statistics have been proposed for testing sensitivity and specificity individually. In the presence of a gold standard, simultaneous comparison between two diagnostic tests for noninferiority of sensitivity and specificity based on an asymptotic approach has been studied by Chen et al. (2003). However, the asymptotic approach may suffer from unsatisfactory type I error control as observed from many studies, especially in small to medium sample settings. In this paper, we compare three unconditional approaches for simultaneously testing sensitivity and specificity. They are approaches based on estimation, maximization, and a combination of estimation and maximization. Although the estimation approach does not guarantee type I error, it has satisfactory performance with regard to type I error control. The other two unconditional approaches are exact. The approach based on estimation and maximization is generally more powerful than the approach based on maximization.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cigdem Akalan Kuyumcu ◽  
Serpil Erol ◽  
Rıza Adaleti ◽  
Seniha Senbayrak ◽  
Secil Deniz ◽  
...  

Objective: Serological tests are the most commonly used tests in the diagnosis of brucellosis; however, each serological test has some drawbacks. In this study, we aimed to determine the value of the Brucella Coombs gel test (BCGT) in the serological diagnosis of brucellosis in comparison with Standard tube agglutination (STA) and ELISA tests. Materials and Methods: The study included 42 patients who were considered to have brucellosis as a preliminary diagnosis. BCGT, Brucella-IgM/IgG ELISA, and STA tests were performed from serum samples of the patients. The correlation of the diagnostic tests was analyzed using Cohen’s Kappa Analysis.  Results: Twenty-seven (64.2%) of 42 patients were diagnosed with brucellosis according to their medical history and clinical and serological tests. The sensitivity and specificity of BCGT to diagnose brucellosis was 96.2%, and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of brucellosis 62.9% and 100% for STA, respectively; 33.3% and 66.6% for Brucella-IgM; and 66.6% and 100% for Brucella-IgG. BCGT was significantly correlated with STA (κ= 0.590) and Brucella-IgG (κ=0.539) Conclusion: BCGT can be utilized as a simple and reliable test in the diagnosis of brucellosis with high sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of BCGT should be demonstrated by comprehensive studies, including culture-confirmed cases and control groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document