Literature DB >> 29230839

Prevalence estimation when disease status is verified only among test positives: Applications in HIV screening programs.

Emma G Thomas1, Sarah B Peskoe1, Donna Spiegelman1,2,3.   

Abstract

The first goal of the United Nations' 90-90-90 HIV/AIDS elimination strategy is to ensure that, by 2020, 90% of HIV-positive people know their HIV status. Estimating the prevalence of HIV among people eligible for screening allows assessment of the number of additional cases that might be diagnosed through continued screening efforts in this group. Here, we present methods for estimating prevalence when HIV status is verified by a gold standard only among those who test positive on an initial, imperfect screening test with known sensitivity and specificity. We develop maximum likelihood estimators and asymptotic confidence intervals for use in 2 scenarios: when the total number of test negatives is known (Scenario 1) and unknown (Scenario 2). We derive Bayesian prevalence estimators to account for non-negligible uncertainty in previous estimates of the sensitivity and specificity. The Scenario 1 estimator consistently outperformed the Scenario 2 estimator in simulations, demonstrating the use of recording the number of test negatives in public health screening programs. For less accurate tests (sensitivity and specificity < 90%), the performance of the 2 estimators was comparable, suggesting that, under these circumstances, prevalence can still be estimated with adequate precision when the number of test negatives is unknown. However, use of the Bayesian approach to account for uncertainty in the sensitivity and specificity is especially recommended for the Scenario 2 estimator, which was particularly sensitive to misspecification of these values. R code for implementing these methods is available at hsph.harvard.edu/donna-spiegelman/software.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HIV; diagnostic test; partial verification; prevalence estimation; screening test

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29230839      PMCID: PMC6512805          DOI: 10.1002/sim.7568

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  12 in total

1.  Analytic methods for comparing two dichotomous screening or diagnostic tests applied to two populations of differing disease prevalence when individuals negative on both tests are unverified.

Authors:  Geoffrey Berry; Catherine L Smith; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a mathematical model.

Authors:  Reuben M Granich; Charles F Gilks; Christopher Dye; Kevin M De Cock; Brian G Williams
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Estimation of test sensitivity and specificity when disease confirmation is limited to positive results.

Authors:  S D Walter
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: a hierarchical model using multi-center data.

Authors:  Eileen M Stock; James D Stamey; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan; Dean M Young; Richard Muwonge; Marc Arbyn
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  A two-stage estimation for screening studies using two diagnostic tests with binary disease status verified in test positives only.

Authors:  Feng Li; Haitao Chu; Lei Nie
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Detection of acute HIV infection: a field evaluation of the determine® HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab combo test.

Authors:  Nora E Rosenberg; Gift Kamanga; Sam Phiri; Dominic Nsona; Audrey Pettifor; Sarah E Rutstein; Deborah Kamwendo; Irving F Hoffman; Maria Keating; Lillian B Brown; Beatrice Ndalama; Susan A Fiscus; Seth Congdon; Myron S Cohen; William C Miller
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 5.226

7.  Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test.

Authors:  W J Rogan; B Gladen
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  On the estimation of disease prevalence by latent class models for screening studies using two screening tests with categorical disease status verified in test positives only.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Yijie Zhou; Stephen R Cole; Joseph G Ibrahim
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Evaluation of simple rapid HIV assays and development of national rapid HIV test algorithms in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Authors:  Eligius F Lyamuya; Said Aboud; Willy K Urassa; Jaffer Sufi; Judica Mbwana; Faustin Ndugulile; Charles Massambu
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.090

10.  A two-stage Bayesian method for estimating accuracy and disease prevalence for two dependent dichotomous screening tests when the status of individuals who are negative on both tests is unverified.

Authors:  Jin Liu; Feng Chen; Hao Yu; Ping Zeng; Liya Liu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.