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 am personally practicing as if our test has the same sensitivity as everywhere else. The downside to false negatives is too great to do otherwise.
-
At Santa Clara Valley we are using Stanford’s test also. The same document you had posted was circulated to some degree to us and O’Connor and I fear the effect it could potentially have on doctors decision-making since it seems this info is it’s way around the area
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I hope clinicians utilizing the Stanford tests aren’t operating under this assumption, especially for patients with higher than average prior probability
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

