| Literature DB >> 31432642 |
Dong Wook Jekarl1,2, Hyunyu Choi3, Ji Yeon Kim3, Seungok Lee2,3, Tae Geun Gweon4, Hae Kyung Lee2,5, Yonggoo Kim1,2.
Abstract
Evaluation of diagnostic tests requires reference standards, which are often unavailable. Latent class analysis (LCA) can be used to evaluate diagnostic tests without reference standards, using a combination of observed and estimated results. Conditionally independent diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection are required. We used LCA to construct a reference standard and evaluate the capability of non-invasive tests (stool antigen test and serum antibody test) to diagnose H. pylori infection compared with the conventional method, where histology is the reference standard. A total of 96 healthy subjects with endoscopy histology results were enrolled from January to July 2016. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for the LCA approach (i.e., using a combination of three tests as the reference standard) and the conventional method. When LCA was used, sensitivity and specificity were 83.8% and 99.4% for histology, 80.0% and 81.9% for the stool antigen test, and 63.6% and 89.3% for the serum antibody test, respectively. When the conventional method was used, sensitivity and specificity were 75.8% and 71.1% for the stool antigen test and 77.7% and 60.7% for the serum antibody test, respectively. LCA can be applied to evaluate diagnostic tests that lack a reference standard. © The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnosis; Helicobacter pylori; Latent class analysis; Reference standard; Serum antibody test; Stool antigen test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31432642 PMCID: PMC6713662 DOI: 10.3343/alm.2020.40.1.68
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Lab Med ISSN: 2234-3806 Impact factor: 3.464
Tested data, expected values, assignment to latent class, and probability of the assignment class based on a two-class model
| Group | Histology | Stool Ag test | Serum Ab test | Observed | Estimated | Assignment to latent class | Estimated probability negative | Estimated probability positive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23.0 | 0 | 0.967 | 0.032 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 0.617 | 0.382 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 0.667 | 0.332 |
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 1 | 0.098 | 0.901 |
| 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4.0 | 1 | 0.038 | 0.961 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 15.9 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.998 |
| 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 6.9 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.997 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 28 | 28.0 | 1 | 0.0002 | 0.999 |
Abbreviations: 0, negative result; 1, positive result; Ab, antibody; Ag, antigen.
Performance of diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection according to latent class analysis based on a two-class model (performed without a reference standard) and the conventional method
| Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) | Specificity (%) (95% CI) | Accuracy (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Latent class analysis | |||
| Histology | 83.8 (81.5–86.1) | 99.4 (98.9–99.8) | 91.6 (86.9–96.2) |
| Stool Ag | 80.0 (77.5– 82.4) | 81.9 (79.5–84.2) | 80.9 (74.3–87.5) |
| Serum Ab | 63.6 (60.6–66.7) | 89.3 (87.3–91.2) | 76.4 (69.2–83.6) |
| Conventional method | |||
| Histology | 1.0* | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Stool Ag | 75.8 (64.8–86.8) | 71.1 (56.6–85.4) | 73.9 (66.5–81.3) |
| Serum Ab | 77.7 (65.6–89.9) | 60.7 (47.3–74.1) | 68.7 (60.9–76.5) |
*Histology results were used as the reference standard for the conventional method.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; Ag, antigen; Ab, antibody.