## EXAMPLE 1:
## You would like to confirm the absence of disease in a study area. You
## intend to use two tests: the first has a sensitivity and specificity of
## 0.90 and 0.80, respectively. The second has a sensitivity and specificity
## of 0.95 and 0.85, respectively. You need to make sure that an individual
## that returns a positive test really has disease, so the tests will be
## interpreted in series (to improve specificity).
## What is the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of this testing
## regime?
rsu.dxtest(se = c(0.90,0.95), sp = c(0.80,0.85), covar.pos = 0, covar.neg = 0,
interpretation = "series")
## Interpretation of these tests in series returns a diagnostic sensitivity
## of 0.855 and a diagnostic specificity of 0.970.
## EXAMPLE 2 (from Dohoo, Martin and Stryhn p 113):
## An IFAT and PCR are to be used to diagnose infectious salmon anaemia.
## The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the IFAT is 0.784 and 0.951,
## respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the PCR is
## 0.926 and 0.979, respectively. It is known that the two tests are dependent,
## with details of the covariance calculated above. What is the expected
## sensitivity and specificity if the tests are to be interpreted in parallel?
rsu.dxtest(se = c(0.784,0.926), sp = c(0.951,0.979), covar.pos = 0.035,
covar.neg = -0.001, interpretation = "parallel")
## Interpreting test results in parallel and accounting for the lack of
## test indepdendence returns a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.949 and diagnostic
## specificity of 0.930.
## EXAMPLE 3:
## Three diagnostic tests for Brucella suis in dogs are available: the Rose
## Bengal test (RBT), complement fixation (CFT) and an c-ELISA. The diagnostic
## sensitivities of the three tests are 0.869, 0.873 and 0.897, respectively.
## The diagnostic specificities of the three tests are 0.895, 0.905, and 0.915,
## respectively.
## For disease positive groups the covariance between test results are
## as follows:
## RBT - CFT: 0.071
## RBT - c-ELISA: 0.018
## CFT - c-ELISA: 0.015
## RBT - CFT - c-ELISA: -0.001
covp012 <- 0.071
covp013 <- 0.018
covp023 <- 0.015
covp123 <- -0.001
covp <- c(covp012,covp013,covp023,covp123)
## For disease negative groups the covariance between test results are
## as follows:
## RBT - CFT: 0.076
## RBT - c-ELISA: 0.062
## CFT - c-ELISA: 0.062
## RBT - CFT - c-ELISA: 0.049
covn012 <- 0.076
covn013 <- 0.062
covn023 <- 0.062
covn123 <- 0.049
covn <- c(covn012,covn013,covn023,covn123)
## What is the expected diagnostic sensitivity and specificity if all three
## tests are run on an individual and interpreted in parallel?
rsu.dxtest(se = c(0.869,0.873,0.897), sp = c(0.895,0.905,0.915),
covar.pos = covp, covar.neg = covn, interpretation = "parallel")
## Interpreting the test results in parallel and accounting for depdendence
## between the three tests returns a diagnostic sensitivity of
## 0.991 and a diagnostic specificity of 0.873. If we didn't account for test
## dependence our estimate of diagnostic specificity would be 0.741.
## What is the expected sensitivity and specificity if all three
## tests are run on an individual and interpreted in series?
rsu.dxtest(se = c(0.869,0.873,0.897), sp = c(0.895,0.905,0.915),
covar.pos = covp, covar.neg = covn, interpretation = "series")
## Interpreting the test results in series and accounting for depdendence
## between the three tests returns a diagnostic sensitivity of
## 0.774 and a diagnostic specificity of 1.000.
Run the code above in your browser using DataLab