Author
Listed:
- Brendan C. Delaney
- Roger L. Holder
- Teresa F. Allan
- Joyce E. Kenkre
- F. D. Richard Hobbs
Abstract
Objective . Evaluations of point of care tests (PCT) are often hampered by a lack of appropriate gold standards. This study aimed to compare the results of a Bayesian statistical analysis and a maximum likelihood method to evaluate the performance of a PCT for Helicobacter pylori in primary care. Methods . The Helisal Rapid Blood Test (Cortecs Diagnostics) was performed in 311 patients from 6 primary care centers, and a concurrent venous sample was taken for 2 enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) performed at the laboratory, blind to the PCT result. The Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods (WinBUGS). The performance characteristics of the PCT and the 2 ELISA tests were estimated together with 95% credible intervals (95% CIs). Results . The estimate of prevalence of H. pylori in this population was 64% (95% CI, 59% to 70%), the sensitivity and specificity of the PCT were 89% (84% to 94%) and 84% (77% to 91%), respectively (likelihood ratios positive 5.6, negative 0.13). The equivalent maximum likelihood results were prevalence, 65%; sensitivity, 90%; and specificity, 83%. Conclusions . The Helisal Rapid Blood Test performed as well as laboratory-based ELISA tests in this cohort of patients. The Bayesian analysis and the maximum likelihood method gave similar results, the Bayesian method also simultaneously estimating 95% CIs.
Suggested Citation
Brendan C. Delaney & Roger L. Holder & Teresa F. Allan & Joyce E. Kenkre & F. D. Richard Hobbs, 2003.
"A Comparison of Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Methods to Determine the Performance of a Point of Care Test for Helicobacter pylori in the Office Setting,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(1), pages 21-30, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:21-30
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X02239648
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:21-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.