Anyone listen to this @StanfordMed grand rounds? Can someone explain to my non-Stanford brain how they can claim their PCR has ~96% sensitivity based on concordance/repeatability when everyone else is reporting ~70% sensitivity for their tests?
https://youtu.be/Xm76adKULY4?t=2540 … (~42:0)
-
-
The higher false negative rates seems to be a result of bad sample collection rather than reflecting the true sensitivity of the test.
-
Right but they're saying clinical sensitivity (vs lab sensitivity) of the test which is what I see as an ordering clinician, which I would interpret to include sampling error... no other lab is claiming 96%sn/100%sp which seems almost absurd to take at face value..

- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
was sent this before- still doesn’t make sense to me. Even if the laboratory assay is v sensitive it seems the clinical test would be far less sensitive because of sampling/handling errors. This seems it could give clinicians a false sense of security if untrue.