Bayesian Measurement of Diagnostic Accuracy of the RT-PCR Test for COVID-19

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting select genes of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been the main diagnostic tool in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It took several months after the development of these molecular tests to assess their diagnostic performance in the population. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that it was possible to measure the diagnostic accuracy of the RT-PCR test at an early stage of the pandemic despite the absence of a gold standard. The study design is a secondary analysis of published data on 1014 patients in Wuhan, China, of whom 59.3% tested positive for COVID-19 in RT-PCR tests and 87.6% tested positive in chest computerized tomography (CT) exams. Previously ignored expert opinions in the form of verbal probability classifications of patients with conflicting test results have been utilized here to derive the informative prior distribution of the infected proportion. A Bayesian implementation of the Dawid-Skene model, typically used in the context of crowd-sourced data, was used to reconstruct the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic tests without the need for specifying a gold standard. The sensitivity of the RT-PCR diagnostic test developed by China CDC was estimated to be 0.707 (95% Cr I: 0.664, 0.753), while the specificity was 0.861 (95% Cr I: 0.781, 0.956). In contrast, chest CT was found to have high sensitivity (95% Cr I: 0.969, 1.000) but low specificity (95% Cr I: 0.477, 0.742). This estimate is similar to estimates that were found later in studies designed specifically for measuring the diagnostic performance of the RT-PCR test. The developed methods could be applied to assess diagnostic accuracy of new variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the future.

[1]  D. Ip,et al.  Is oropharyngeal sampling a reliable test to detect SARS-CoV-2? – Authors' reply , 2021, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[2]  L. Ahmed,et al.  Chest CT features of COVID-19 in the region of Abu Dhabi, UAE- A single institute study , 2020, medRxiv.

[3]  Z. Kincses,et al.  The sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in the diagnosis of COVID-19 , 2020, European Radiology.

[4]  P. Linksted,et al.  Diagnostic performance of the combined nasal and throat swab in patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 , 2020, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[5]  E. Pomari,et al.  Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Values of Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study in Emergency Room , 2020, medRxiv.

[6]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Challenges and Implications. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  L. Kucirka,et al.  Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  M. Dramé,et al.  Should RT‐PCR be considered a gold standard in the diagnosis of COVID‐19? , 2020, Journal of medical virology.

[9]  N. Low,et al.  False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review , 2020, medRxiv.

[10]  A. Laghi,et al.  Chest CT Features of COVID-19 in Rome, Italy , 2020, Radiology.

[11]  Wenjie Yang,et al.  Clinical Features and Chest CT Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Single-Center Study in Shanghai, China. , 2020, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  R. Lu,et al.  Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens. , 2020, JAMA.

[13]  Q. Tao,et al.  Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A Report of 1014 Cases , 2020, Radiology.

[14]  Y. Teo,et al.  Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review , 2020, Journal of clinical medicine.

[15]  R. Charrel,et al.  Laboratory readiness and response for novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in expert laboratories in 30 EU/EEA countries, January 2020 , 2020, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[16]  Lei Liu,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of different respiratory specimens in the laboratory diagnosis and monitoring the viral shedding of 2019-nCoV infections , 2020, medRxiv.

[17]  E. Holmes,et al.  A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China , 2020, Nature.

[18]  Victor M Corman,et al.  Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR , 2020, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[19]  Fiona Fidler,et al.  Verbal probabilities: Very likely to be somewhat more confusing than numbers , 2019, PloS one.

[20]  Sun Ae Yun,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the PowerChek MERS (upE & ORF1a) Real-Time PCR Kit for the Detection of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus RNA , 2017, Annals of laboratory medicine.

[21]  E. Bouza,et al.  Comparison of real-time RT-PCR, shell vial culture, and conventional cell culture for the detection of the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in hospitalized patients. , 2011, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[22]  F. Leisch,et al.  FlexMix Version 2: Finite Mixtures with Concomitant Variables and Varying and Constant Parameters , 2008 .

[23]  Y. Guan,et al.  Early diagnosis of SARS Coronavirus infection by real time RT-PCR , 2003, Journal of Clinical Virology.

[24]  L. Poon,et al.  Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia : a prospective study , 2003 .

[25]  A. P. Dawid,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Observer Error‐Rates Using the EM Algorithm , 1979 .

[26]  P. E. Castro Compact Numerical Methods for Computers: Linear Algebra and Function Minimization , 1978 .

[27]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[28]  L. A. ZADEH,et al.  The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning - I , 1975, Inf. Sci..