Are we sure that two 70% sensitive tests give 91% sensitivity? Doesn't that assume randomness in the test's mode of failure? If there is an underlying reason the test returned a false negative, couldn't we have an increased probability of a second false positive based on priors?
There is no "one-size fits all" test. What we need in hospitals is different than for surveillance. A 70% sensitive test done 2d in a row, gives 91% sensitivity by the second day. For public health, frequency and TAT are critical. @ADPaltiel @JAMA_current
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768923 …https://twitter.com/roby_bhatt/status/1291325140744187905 …
NEJM editorial argues that low sensitivity tests are problematic
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897?query=TOC …
If the alternative is a perfect test, sure. But tests are still too scarce. We need more & faster tests; can sacrifice Se w/ clear communication
@michaelmina_lab @DanLarremore @RWalensky 
Näytä tämä ketju
-
-
-
1/2 These numbers make sense as we apply it to a population. As you point out there are issues with sampling error (Soft Touch Sam vs. Brain Biopsy Brian), sampling site, and patient specific factors like days from symptom onset and perhaps shedding patterns.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
From a public health standpoint (not from a diagnostic standpoint), do we care so much if someone is infected if they aren’t transmissible? We need a new metric for “sensitivity for transmissible disease”.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.