Examining the effect of evaluation sample size on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 diagnostic tests in practice: a simulation study.

COVID-19 Diagnostic accuracy Research methodology Sample size Statistical study design

Journal

Diagnostic and prognostic research
ISSN: 2397-7523
Titre abrégé: Diagn Progn Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101718985

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 06 07 2021
accepted: 20 12 2021
entrez: 26 4 2022
pubmed: 27 4 2022
medline: 27 4 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, many in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed. Given the urgent clinical demand, researchers must balance the desire for precise estimates of sensitivity and specificity against the need for rapid implementation. To complement estimates of precision used for sample size calculations, we aimed to estimate the probability that an IVD will fail to perform to expected standards after implementation, following clinical studies with varying sample sizes. We assumed that clinical validation study estimates met the 'desirable' performance (sensitivity 97%, specificity 99%) in the target product profile (TPP) published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). To estimate the real-world impact of imprecision imposed by sample size we used Bayesian posterior calculations along with Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 independent iterations of 5,000 participants. We varied the prevalence between 1 and 15% and the sample size between 30 and 2,000. For each sample size, we estimated the probability that diagnostic accuracy would fail to meet the TPP criteria after implementation. For a validation study that demonstrates 'desirable' sensitivity within a sample of 30 participants who test positive for COVID-19 using the reference standard, the probability that real-world performance will fail to meet the 'desirable' criteria is 10.7-13.5%, depending on prevalence. Theoretically, demonstrating the 'desirable' performance in 90 positive participants would reduce that probability to below 5%. A marked reduction in the probability of failure to hit 'desirable' specificity occurred between samples of 100 (19.1-21.5%) and 160 (4.3-4.8%) negative participants. There was little further improvement above sample sizes of 160 negative participants. Based on imprecision alone, small evaluation studies can lead to the acceptance of diagnostic tests which are likely to fail to meet performance targets when deployed. There is diminished return on uncertainty surrounding an accuracy estimate above a total sample size of 250 (90 positive and 160 negative).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, many in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed. Given the urgent clinical demand, researchers must balance the desire for precise estimates of sensitivity and specificity against the need for rapid implementation. To complement estimates of precision used for sample size calculations, we aimed to estimate the probability that an IVD will fail to perform to expected standards after implementation, following clinical studies with varying sample sizes.
METHODS METHODS
We assumed that clinical validation study estimates met the 'desirable' performance (sensitivity 97%, specificity 99%) in the target product profile (TPP) published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). To estimate the real-world impact of imprecision imposed by sample size we used Bayesian posterior calculations along with Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 independent iterations of 5,000 participants. We varied the prevalence between 1 and 15% and the sample size between 30 and 2,000. For each sample size, we estimated the probability that diagnostic accuracy would fail to meet the TPP criteria after implementation.
RESULTS RESULTS
For a validation study that demonstrates 'desirable' sensitivity within a sample of 30 participants who test positive for COVID-19 using the reference standard, the probability that real-world performance will fail to meet the 'desirable' criteria is 10.7-13.5%, depending on prevalence. Theoretically, demonstrating the 'desirable' performance in 90 positive participants would reduce that probability to below 5%. A marked reduction in the probability of failure to hit 'desirable' specificity occurred between samples of 100 (19.1-21.5%) and 160 (4.3-4.8%) negative participants. There was little further improvement above sample sizes of 160 negative participants.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Based on imprecision alone, small evaluation studies can lead to the acceptance of diagnostic tests which are likely to fail to meet performance targets when deployed. There is diminished return on uncertainty surrounding an accuracy estimate above a total sample size of 250 (90 positive and 160 negative).

Identifiants

pubmed: 35468850
doi: 10.1186/s41512-021-00116-4
pii: 10.1186/s41512-021-00116-4
pmc: PMC9035779
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

12

Investigateurs

Richard Body (R)
Gail Hayward (G)
Joy Allen (J)
Julian Braybrook (J)
Peter Buckle (P)
Paul Dark (P)
Kerrie Davis (K)
Eloise Cook (E)
Adam Gordon (A)
Anna Halstead (A)
Dan Lasserson (D)
Andrew Lewington (A)
Brian Nicholson (B)
Rafael Perera-Salazar (R)
John Simpson (J)
Philip Turner (P)
Graham Prestwich (G)
Charles Reynard (C)
Beverley Riley (B)
Valerie Tate (V)
Mark Wilcox (M)

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Sep;466(9):2282-8
pubmed: 18566874
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:193-204
pubmed: 24582925
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Oct;10(10):YE01-YE06
pubmed: 27891446
BMJ. 2020 May 15;369:m1932
pubmed: 32414712
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Epidemiology. 2018 Sep;29(5):599-603
pubmed: 29912015
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010 Nov-Dec;58(6):469-70
pubmed: 20952828
Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Jul-Aug;19(4):27-9
pubmed: 25279518
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220

Auteurs

Camilla Sammut-Powell (C)

Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Charles Reynard (C)

Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Charlie.reynard@manchester.ac.uk.
Emergency Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. Charlie.reynard@manchester.ac.uk.

Joy Allen (J)

NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK.

John McDermott (J)

Department of Genetics, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Julian Braybrook (J)

National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY, UK.

Rosa Parisi (R)

Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Daniel Lasserson (D)

Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Department of Geratology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Richard Body (R)

Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Emergency Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.

Classifications MeSH