Evaluation of screening tests for detecting chlamydia trachomatis: Bias associated with the patient-infected-status algorithm

Epidemiology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 72-82

  Hadgu, Alula ^a   Dendukuri, Nandini ^b,c   Wang, Liangliang ^d  

^a CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CHLAMYDIASIS; HUMAN; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; TISSUE CULTURE;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; HUMANS; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION TECHNIQUES; PREVALENCE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 83655183660     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823b506b     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1987;6:411-423. (Pubitemid 17110905)
2. Ramsey SD, Luce BR, Deyo R, Franklin G. The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: facing the issues. Am J Manage Care. 1998;4(Spec no.):SP188-SP199. (Pubitemid 28481062)
3. Hadgu A. Bias in the evaluation of DNA-amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis. Stat Med. 1997;16:1391-1399. (Pubitemid 27292271)
4. Hadgu A. The discrepancy in discrepant analysis. Lancet. 1996;348:592-593. (Pubitemid 26283894)
5. Hadgu A. Discrepant analysis: a biased and an unscientific method for estimating test sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;12:1231-1237. (Pubitemid 29535424)
6. Miller WC. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make it a right. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1299-1303.
7. Hilden J. Discrepant analysis-or behavior? Lancet. 1997;350:902.
8. McAdam AJ. Discrepant analysis: how can we test a test? J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:2027-29. (Pubitemid 30414310)
9. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests. Bethesda (MD): US Health and Human Services; 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Device RegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/ucm071287.pdf.
10. Martin DH, Nsuami M, Schachter J, et al. Use of multiple nucleic acid amplification tests to define the infected-patient "gold standard" in clinical trials of new diagnostic tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infections. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:4749-4758. (Pubitemid 39362398)
11. Schachter J, Chernesky MA, Willis DE, et al. Vaginal swabs are the specimens of choice when screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: results from a multicenter evaluation of the APTIMA assays for both infections. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32:725-728. (Pubitemid 41752557)
12. Van Der Pol, Ferrero BD, Buck-Barrington L, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the BDProbeTec ET system for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in urine specimens, female endocervical swabs, and male urethral swabs. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:1008-1016. (Pubitemid 32215284)
13. Gaydos CA, Quinn TC, Willis D, et al. Performance of the APTIMA Combo 2 assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in female urine and endocervical swab specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:304-309. (Pubitemid 36098592)
14. Chernesky MA, Martin DH, Hook EW, et al. Ability of new APTIMA CT and APTIMA GC assays to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in male urine and urethral swabs. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;43:127-131. (Pubitemid 40096289)
15. Hadgu A, Dendukuri N, Hilden J. The evaluation of nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting sexually transmitted diseases-a review of the statistical and epidemiological issues. Epidemiology. 2005;16: 604-612. (Pubitemid 41233613)
16. GEN-PROBE APTIMA Assay for Chlamydia trachomatis. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Safety Availability/ TissueSafety/ucm100235.pdf.
17. GEN-PROBE APTIMA Assay for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Available at: http://www.gen-probe.com/pdfs/pi/501800RevA.pdf.
18. GEN-PROBE APTIMA Combo 2 Assay. Available at: http://www.gen-probe.com/ pdfs/pi/501798RevA.pdf.
19. Hadgu A, Qu Y. A biomedical application of latent class models with random effects. J R Stat Soc Ser C. 1998;47:603-616.
20. Rindskop D, Rindskopf W. The value of latent class analysis in medical diagnosis. Stat Med. 1998;5:21-27.
21. Qu Y, Tan M, Kutner MH. Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1996; 52:797-810. (Pubitemid 26296059)
22. Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 2001; 57:158-167. (Pubitemid 32200150)
23. Dendukuri M, Hadgu A, Wang L. Modeling conditional dependence between diagnostic tests: a multiple latent variable model. Stat Med. 2009;28:441-461.
24. Dendukuri N, Wang L, Hadgu A. Evaluating diagnostic tests for Chlamydia trachomatis in the absence of a gold-standard: a comparison of 3 statistical methods. Stat Biopharm Res. 2011;3:385-397.
25. Hui SL, Zhou XH. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998;7:354-370. (Pubitemid 28559254)
26. Vacek PM. The effects of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1985;41:959-968.
27. Torrance-Rynard VL, Walter SD. Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. Stat Med. 1997;16:2157-2175. (Pubitemid 27429764)
28. Wang L, Dendukuri N. lcmr: An R package for Bayesian Estimation of Latent Class Models With Random Effects," Version 1.6.26. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package-lcmr Statistics.
29. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than exact for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Amer Statist. 1998;52:119-126.
30. Newhall JW, Johnson RE, DeLisle et al. Head-to-head evaluation of five Chlamydia tests relative to a quality-assured culture standard. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:681-685.
31. Johnson RE, Newhall WJ, Papp JR, et al. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-15):1-39.
32. FDA Statistical Guidance on Reporting Results from studies Evaluating DiagnosticTests,2007.Availableat:http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071148.htm? sms-ss=-email#6.
33. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS. Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Stat Med. 1999;22:2987-3003. (Pubitemid 29526940)
34. Food and Drug Administration. Microbiology Devices Panel. Medical Advisory Committee Meeting. Rockville, MD: Miller Reporting Company 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/98/transcpt/3387t1.pdf.
35. Hadgu A. Issues in Chlamydia trachomatis testing by a nucleic acid amplification tests (Correspondence). J Infect Dis. 2006;193:1335-1336.
36. Persing DH, Tenover FC, Versalovic J, et al. Molecular Microbiology. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2004.