Author:
Wang Zheng,Liu Yu-Lun,Chen Yong,Siegel Lianne,Cappelleri Joseph C,Chu Haitao
Abstract
Abstract
In a recent systematic review, Bastos et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501–510) compared the sensitivities of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by assuming a composite reference standard defined as positive if either test is positive and negative if both tests are negative (double negative). Even under a perfect specificity assumption, this approach ignores the double-negative results and risks overestimating the sensitivities due to residual misclassification. In this article, we first illustrate the impact of double-negative results in the estimation of the sensitivities in a single study, and then propose a 2-step latent class meta-analysis method for reevaluating both sensitivities using the same published data set as that used in Bastos et al. by properly including the observed double-negative results. We also conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed method with Bastos et al.’s method for varied levels of prevalence and between-study heterogeneity. The results demonstrate that the sensitivities are overestimated noticeably using Bastos et al.’s method, and the proposed method provides a more accurate evaluation with nearly no bias and close-to-nominal coverage probability. In conclusion, double-negative results can significantly impact the estimated sensitivities when a gold standard is absent, and thus they should be properly incorporated.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference97 articles.
1. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: a systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard—an update;Umemneku;PLoS One.,2019
2. Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy TEsts: the SEDATE guideline;Sotiriadis;Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.,2016
3. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review;McGrath;Syst Rev.,2017
4. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy;Leeflang;Clin Microbiol Infect,2014
5. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis;Bastos;BMJ.,2020