↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Diagnostic Tests With Near-Perfect Specificity: Use of a Hui–Walter Approach When Designing a Trial of a DIVA Test for Bovine Tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating Diagnostic Tests With Near-Perfect Specificity: Use of a Hui–Walter Approach When Designing a Trial of a DIVA Test for Bovine Tuberculosis
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustaf Rydevik, Giles T. Innocent, Iain J. McKendrick

Abstract

Active surveillance of rare infectious diseases requires diagnostic tests to have high specificity, otherwise the false positive results can outnumber the true cases detected, leading to low positive predictive values. Where a positive result can have economic consequences, such as the cull of a bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) positive herd, establishing a high specificity becomes particularly important. When evaluating new diagnostic tests against a "gold standard" reference test with assumed perfect sensitivity and specificity, calculation of sample sizes are commonly done using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution, although this approach can be misleading. As the expected specificity of the evaluated diagnostic test nears 100%, the errors arising from this approximation are appreciable. Alternatively, it is straightforward to calculate the sample size by using more appropriate confidence intervals, while precisely quantifying the effect of sampling variability using the binomial distribution. However, regardless of the approach, if specificity is high the sample size required becomes large, and the gold standard may be prohibitively costly. An alternative to a gold standard test is to use at least two imperfect, conditionally independent tests, and to analyse the results using a variant of the approach initially proposed by Hui and Walter. We show how this method performs for tests with near-perfect specificity; in particular we show that the sample size required to deliver useful bounds on the precision becomes very large for both approaches. We illustrate these concepts using simulation studies carried out to support the design of a trial of a bTB vaccine and a diagnostic that is able to "Differentiate Infected and Vaccinated Animals" (DIVA). Both test characteristics and the efficacy of the bTB vaccine will influence the sample size required for the study. We propose an improved methodology using a two stage approach to evaluating diagnostic tests in low disease prevalence populations. By combining an initial gold standard pilot study with a larger study analyzed using a Hui-Walter approach, the sample size required for each study can be reduced and the precision of the specificity estimate improved, since information from both studies is combined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 26 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 29 66%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,621,937
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,139
of 6,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,295
of 331,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#27
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.