| Evaluating qualitative assays using sensitivity and specificity. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 12477066 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
Sensitivity and specificity are two important indices of performance of qualitative assays. Evaluating these indices usually requires one to identify the true disease state of each subject involved in a study. This implies that a perfect test, a "gold standard," is needed to test each subject. However, a gold standard test cannot always be performed on all subjects, whether because of cost or adverse effect on a subject's welfare. In these situations, a common practice is to apply both a currently used assay and an investigational assay to the same specimen. If the testing results are discordant, a gold standard test is applied. This approach has been criticized by many and, in fact, the statistics based on this approach usually overestimate sensitivity and specificity. This paper proposes two alternative methods to estimate sensitivity and specificity. Simulation results show that these methods perform better than the commonly used existing ones. This paper proposes new acceptance criteria and designs to specific topics for the evaluation of blood related assays as well. To evaluate a qualitative assay related to blood specimens, one must also perform studies of storage conditions, interfering substances, and other related factors, in order to establish the equivalency of the assay under standard and various other conditions. To conduct these studies, true negative blood donor specimens are used as a sample from a nondiseased population; and blood donor specimens with spiked analyte are used to represent a sample from a diseased population. Currently, the target-spiking ranges and sample sizes are determined subjectively. This paper presents new acceptance criteria on acceptable conditions and objective standards for selecting the target-spiking range and sample size. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Bob Zhong |
Related Documents
:
|
11204936 - Estimated coefficient of variation values for sample size planning in bioequivalence st... 530806 - Information used in judging impending collision. 20865746 - Nasal potential measurements on the nasal floor and under the inferior turbinate: does ... 12585496 - Application of a combination of hard and soft modeling for equilibrium systems to the q... 22367686 - Quantitative analysis of upper limbs during gait: a marker set protocol. 11749586 - 4d-qsar analysis of a set of ecdysteroids and a comparison to comfa modeling. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics Volume: 12 ISSN: 1054-3406 ISO Abbreviation: J Biopharm Stat Publication Date: 2002 Nov |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2002-12-12 Completed Date: 2003-05-07 Revised Date: 2004-11-17 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9200436 Medline TA: J Biopharm Stat Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 409-24 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL 60064, USA. bob.zhong@abbott.com |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Algorithms Biological Assay / statistics & numerical data* Blood Chemical Analysis / statistics & numerical data Computer Simulation Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Laboratory Techniques and Procedures / statistics & numerical data Sample Size |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus manifesting with localized loss of periodontal attachment.
Next Document: On the joint analysis of longitudinal responses and early discontinuation in randomized trials.