Isabel A Hujoel1, Claire L Jansson-Knodell2, Philippe P Hujoel3, Margaux L A Hujoel4, Rok Seon Choung1, Joseph A Murray1, Alberto Rubio-Tapia5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
GOAL: The goal of this study was to estimate the impact of verification bias on the diagnostic accuracy of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (IgA tTG) in detecting celiac disease as reported by an authoritative meta-analysis, the 2016 Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER). BACKGROUND: Verification bias is introduced to diagnostic accuracy studies when screening test results impact the decision to verify disease status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adjusted the sensitivity and specificity of IgA tTG reported by the 2016 CER with the proportion of IgA tTG positive and negative individuals who are referred for confirmatory small bowel biopsy. We performed a systematic review from January 1, 2007, to July 19, 2017, to determine these referral rates. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 793 articles of which 9 met inclusion criteria (n=36,477). Overall, 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-10.9%] of IgA tTG negative and 79.2.2% (95% CI: 65.0%-88.7%) of IgA tTG positive individuals were referred for biopsy. Adjusting for these referral rates the 2016 CER reported sensitivity of IgA tTG dropped from 92.6% (95% CI: 90.2%-94.5%) to 57.1% (95% CI: 35.4%-76.4%) and the specificity increased from 97.6% (95% CI: 96.3%-98.5%) to 99.6% (95% CI: 98.4%-99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CER may have largely overestimated the sensitivity of IgA tTG due to a failure to account for verification bias. These findings suggest caution in the interpretation of a negative IgA tTG to rule out celiac disease in clinical practice. More broadly, they highlight the impact of verification bias on diagnostic accuracy estimates and suggest that studies at risk for this bias be excluded from systematic reviews.
GOAL: The goal of this study was to estimate the impact of verification bias on the diagnostic accuracy of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (IgA tTG) in detecting celiac disease as reported by an authoritative meta-analysis, the 2016 Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER). BACKGROUND: Verification bias is introduced to diagnostic accuracy studies when screening test results impact the decision to verify disease status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adjusted the sensitivity and specificity of IgA tTG reported by the 2016 CER with the proportion of IgA tTG positive and negative individuals who are referred for confirmatory small bowel biopsy. We performed a systematic review from January 1, 2007, to July 19, 2017, to determine these referral rates. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 793 articles of which 9 met inclusion criteria (n=36,477). Overall, 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-10.9%] of IgA tTG negative and 79.2.2% (95% CI: 65.0%-88.7%) of IgA tTG positive individuals were referred for biopsy. Adjusting for these referral rates the 2016 CER reported sensitivity of IgA tTG dropped from 92.6% (95% CI: 90.2%-94.5%) to 57.1% (95% CI: 35.4%-76.4%) and the specificity increased from 97.6% (95% CI: 96.3%-98.5%) to 99.6% (95% CI: 98.4%-99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CER may have largely overestimated the sensitivity of IgA tTG due to a failure to account for verification bias. These findings suggest caution in the interpretation of a negative IgA tTG to rule out celiac disease in clinical practice. More broadly, they highlight the impact of verification bias on diagnostic accuracy estimates and suggest that studies at risk for this bias be excluded from systematic reviews.
Authors: Jamile Wakim-Fleming; Mangesh R Pagadala; Arthur J McCullough; Rocio Lopez; Ana E Bennett; David S Barnes; William D Carey Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Toufic A Kabbani; Rohini R Vanga; Daniel A Leffler; Javier Villafuerte-Galvez; Kumar Pallav; Joshua Hansen; Rupa Mukherjee; Melinda Dennis; Ciaran P Kelly Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ingrid Dahlbom; Ilma R Korponay-Szabó; Judit B Kovács; Zsuzsanna Szalai; Markku Mäki; Tony Hansson Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Johannes Wolf; Dirk Hasenclever; David Petroff; Thomas Richter; Holm H Uhlig; Martin W Laaß; Almuthe Hauer; Martin Stern; Xavier Bossuyt; Jan de Laffolie; Gunter Flemming; Danilo Villalta; Wolfgang Schlumberger; Thomas Mothes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Athena L Sheppard; Martha M C Elwenspoek; Lauren J Scott; Victoria Corfield; Hazel Everitt; Peter M Gillett; Alastair D Hay; Hayley E Jones; Susan Mallett; Jessica Watson; Penny F Whiting Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 9.524