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)
-
-
I agree with your skepticism. In addition to the sampling error issue, the whole idea of using a test repeated at same later point as its own gold standard has always seemed problematic to me.
-
Agree, this can only determine dependency. It is not adequate gold standard. 96% concordance could be useful if more information was provided (?insight into utility of repeat test). Sampling error as source of low sensitivity is purely hypothetical without further experiments.
- 4 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.
