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)
-
-
Replying to @grepmeded
Here is the explanation from the Stanford pathology lab.pic.twitter.com/VVEOOwhaxp
1 reply 3 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DrEricStrong
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.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @grepmeded @DrEricStrong
The higher false negative rates seems to be a result of bad sample collection rather than reflecting the true sensitivity of the test.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SkLumos @DrEricStrong
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..
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @grepmeded @SkLumos
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Another week, another
@StanfordMed grand rounds (~4m mark) claiming their PCR tests have 96% sensitivity 100% sp, in contrast to every other lab in the country (~70-80%). Seems like a dangerous false reassurance to healthcare workers.
https://youtu.be/M3h10h4npbU 2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
As the letter was sent to nursing staff I worry they will let their guard down with these reassurances, esp since they spend so much more time at the bedside. 
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.