Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect reference standard - a comparison of correction methods.
Umemneku Chikere, Chinyereugo M; Wilson, Kevin J; Allen, A Joy; Vale, Luke.
Afiliação
  • Umemneku Chikere CM; Population Health Science Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. cmuc1@leicester.ac.uk.
  • Wilson KJ; School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  • Allen AJ; National Institute for Health Research, Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  • Vale L; Population Health Science Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 21(1): 67, 2021 04 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33845775
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Staquet et al. and Brenner both developed correction methods to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of a binary-response index test when the reference standard is imperfect and its sensitivity and specificity are known. However, to our knowledge, no study has compared the statistical properties of these methods, despite their long application in diagnostic accuracy studies.

AIM:

To compare the correction methods developed by Staquet et al. and Brenner.

METHODS:

Simulations techniques were employed to compare the methods under assumptions that the new test and the reference standard are conditionally independent or dependent given the true disease status of an individual. Three clinical datasets were analysed to understand the impact of using each method to inform clinical decision-making.

RESULTS:

Under the assumption of conditional independence, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner correction method irrespective of the prevalence of disease and whether the performance of the reference standard is better or worse than the index test. However, when the prevalence of the disease is high (> 0.9) or low (< 0.1), the Staquet et al. correction method can produce illogical results (i.e. results outside [0,1]). Under the assumption of conditional dependence; both methods failed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the index test especially when the covariance terms between the index test and the reference standard is not close to zero.

CONCLUSION:

When the new test and the imperfect reference standard are conditionally independent, and the sensitivity and specificity of the imperfect reference standard are known, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner method. However, where the prevalence of the target condition is very high or low or the two tests are conditionally dependent, other statistical methods such as latent class approaches should be considered.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Assunto da revista: MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Res Methodol Assunto da revista: MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido