Author:
Umemneku Chikere Chinyereugo M.,Wilson Kevin J.,Allen A. Joy,Vale Luke
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference29 articles.
1. Vacek PM. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1985;41(4):959–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530967.
2. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess (Winch Eng). 2007;11:iii, ix-51 Review.
3. Chikere CMU, Wilson K, Graziadio S, et al. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: a systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard–an update. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0223832.
4. Gart JJ, Buck AA. Comparison of a screening test and a reference test in epidemiologic studies .2. A probabilistic model for comparison of diagnostic tests. Am J Epidemiol. 1966;83:593. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120610.
5. Staquet M, Rozencweig M, Lee YJ, et al. Methodology for the assessment of new dichotomous diagnostic tests. J Chronic Dis. 1981;34:599–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(81)90059-X.