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

Two dichotomous screening tests may be compared by applying both tests to all members of a sampled population. For individuals with a positive result on either test the disease status may be verified by a reference standard, but for individuals negative on both tests the disease status may be unverified because the probability of disease is so low that further investigation is costly, unacceptable and perhaps unethical. If the tests have been applied to samples from two populations which have different disease prevalences then unbiased estimates of the true positive and false positive rates of each test, the prevalences in the two populations, and two parameters representing dependence between the two tests can be estimated using maximum likelihood methods. The methods are based on the assumption that the sensitivities and specificities of the two tests, and the dependencies between the tests, are independent of prevalence. A test of goodness of fit provides a test of this.

[1]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Spectrum Bias in the Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests: Lessons from the Rapid Dipstick Test for Urinary Tract Infection , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  S D Walter,et al.  The estimation of sensitivity and specificity in colorectal cancer screening methods. , 1991, Cancer detection and prevention.

[3]  B Bunnag,et al.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Cost Analysis in a Population Based Screening Programme for Colorectal Cancer: Comparison of Immunochemical and Guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Testing , 1997, Journal of medical screening.

[5]  M. Tan,et al.  Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. , 1996, Biometrics.

[6]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Immunochemical vs guaiac faecal occult blood tests in a population-based screening programme for colorectal cancer. , 1996, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  S D Walter,et al.  Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  S D Walter,et al.  Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review. , 1988, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  S D Walter,et al.  Estimation of test sensitivity and specificity when disease confirmation is limited to positive results. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[10]  Diederick E. Grobbee,et al.  Limitations of Sensitivity, Specificity, Likelihood Ratio, and Bayes' Theorem in Assessing Diagnostic Probabilities: A Clinical Example , 1997, Epidemiology.

[11]  P Glasziou,et al.  Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  P M Vacek,et al.  The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. , 1985, Biometrics.

[13]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Beta-carotene intake and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[14]  S. Walter,et al.  Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. , 1980, Biometrics.

[15]  Oliver Samuel,et al.  Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM (2nd edn). , 2000 .

[16]  W D Flanders,et al.  Methodology to Correct for Differential Misclassification , 1995, Epidemiology.