Discrepant analysis: a biased and an unscientific method for estimating test sensitivity and specificity
- PMID: 10580787
- DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00101-8
Discrepant analysis: a biased and an unscientific method for estimating test sensitivity and specificity
Abstract
Discrepant analysis is a widely used technique for estimating test performance indices (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) of DNA-amplification tests for detecting infectious diseases. It has recently been claimed that the discrepant analysis-based estimates of specificity are typically less biased than those based on culture and that the discrepant analysis-based specificity shows little appreciable bias. In this article, I show that those conclusions are incorrect. Using a typical example from the published literature, I show that the discrepant analysis-based estimates of sensitivity and specificity can generate a significant and clinically important overestimation of the true sensitivity and specificity values. Moreover, I demonstrate that the concept of discrepant analysis is profoundly flawed and unscientific. It violates a fundamental principle of diagnostic testing-the principle that the new test should not be used to determine the true disease status. Thus, the major problem with discrepant analysis is not only that it is biased but that it is unscientific. Therefore, discrepant analysis should not be adopted for the evaluation of any diagnostic or screening test.
Similar articles
-
Bias in the evaluation of DNA-amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.Stat Med. 1997 Jun 30;16(12):1391-9. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970630)16:12<1391::aid-sim636>3.0.co;2-1. Stat Med. 1997. PMID: 9232760
-
The discrepancy in discrepant analysis.Lancet. 1996 Aug 31;348(9027):592-3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05122-7. Lancet. 1996. PMID: 8774575 Review.
-
Evaluation of bias in diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity estimates computed by discrepant analysis.J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Feb;36(2):375-81. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.2.375-381.1998. J Clin Microbiol. 1998. PMID: 9466744 Free PMC article.
-
Relative accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests and culture in detecting Chlamydia in asymptomatic men.J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Nov;39(11):3927-37. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.3927-3937.2001. J Clin Microbiol. 2001. PMID: 11682509 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection by use of DNA amplification.APMIS Suppl. 1999;89:5-36. APMIS Suppl. 1999. PMID: 10189834 Review.
Cited by
-
Discrepant analysis is still at large.J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Feb;39(2):826-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.2.826-827.2001. J Clin Microbiol. 2001. PMID: 11281122 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Alternate Nucleic Acid Targets Can Be Used To Create a Composite Standard To Evaluate Clinical Performance of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests.J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Jul 26;57(8):e00661-19. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00661-19. Print 2019 Aug. J Clin Microbiol. 2019. PMID: 31142606 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the performance of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in detection of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection in vaginal specimens relative to patient infection status: a systematic review.BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 17;9(1):e022510. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022510. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 30659036 Free PMC article.
-
Multiplex quantitative PCR for detection of lower respiratory tract infection and meningitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria meningitidis.BMC Microbiol. 2010 Dec 3;10:310. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-310. BMC Microbiol. 2010. PMID: 21129171 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnosis and assessment of trachoma.Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Oct;17(4):982-1011, table of contents. doi: 10.1128/CMR.17.4.982-1011.2004. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004. PMID: 15489358 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
