Literature DB >> 9232760

Bias in the evaluation of DNA-amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.

A Hadgu1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to show that the sensitivity and specificity estimates obtained by 'discrepant analysis' are biased. Discrepant analysis is a widely used technique that attempts to provide estimates of sensitivity and specificity in the presence of an imperfect gold standard. Many researchers have applied this technique to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of DNA-amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis such as the plasmid based ligase chain reaction (LCR) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Moreover, the June 1993 package insert of the PCR AMPLICOR Chlamydia trachomatis test contains estimates of sensitivity and specificity based on 'discrepant analysis'. Even if one employs a perfect test to resolve the discrepant results, discrepant analysis estimates of test sensitivity and specificity remain biased. Thus, one should not adopt this technique to evaluate the performance of a diagnostic test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9232760     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970630)16:12<1391::aid-sim636>3.0.co;2-1

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


  20 in total

1.  Discrepant analysis: how can we test a test?

Authors:  A J McAdam
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Discrepant analysis is an inappropriate and unscientific method.

Authors:  A Hadgu
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Nucleic acid amplification tests for diagnosis of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis rectal infections.

Authors:  Laura H Bachmann; Robert E Johnson; Hong Cheng; Lauri Markowitz; John R Papp; Frank J Palella; Edward W Hook
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Utility of composite reference standards and latent class analysis in evaluating the clinical accuracy of diagnostic tests for pertussis.

Authors:  Andrew L Baughman; Kristine M Bisgard; Margaret M Cortese; William W Thompson; Gary N Sanden; Peter M Strebel
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2007-11-07

5.  Head-to-head evaluation of five chlamydia tests relative to a quality-assured culture standard.

Authors:  W J Newhall; R E Johnson; S DeLisle; D Fine; A Hadgu; B Matsuda; D Osmond; J Campbell; W E Stamm
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Evaluation of bias in diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity estimates computed by discrepant analysis.

Authors:  T A Green; C M Black; R E Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Evaluation of nucleic acid amplification tests as reference tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infections in asymptomatic men.

Authors:  R E Johnson; T A Green; J Schachter; R B Jones; E W Hook; C M Black; D H Martin; M E St Louis; W E Stamm
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  Diagnosis and assessment of trachoma.

Authors:  Anthony W Solomon; Rosanna W Peeling; Allen Foster; David C W Mabey
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 26.132

9.  Assessment by meta-analysis of PCR for diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis.

Authors:  Olga L Sarmiento; Kristen A Weigle; Janet Alexander; David J Weber; William C Miller
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Comparison of multiplex PCR assay with culture for detection of genital mycoplasmas.

Authors:  Kathleen A Stellrecht; Amy M Woron; Nada G Mishrik; Richard A Venezia
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.