Local Sensitivity and Diagnostic Tests

In this paper we confront sensitivity analysis with diagnostic testing.Every model is misspecified, but a model is useful if the parameters of interest (the focus) are not sensitive to small perturbations in the underlying assumptions. The study of the e ect of these violations on the focus is called sensitivity analysis.Diagnostic testing, on the other hand, attempts to find out whether a nuisance parameter is large or small.Both aspects are important, but traditional applied econometrics tends to use only diagnostics and forget about sensitivity analysis.We develop a theory of sensitivity in a maximum likelihood framework, propose a sensitivity test, give conditions under which the diagnostic and sensitivity tests are asymptotically independent, and demonstrate with three core examples that this independence is the rule rather than the exception, thus underlying the importance of sensitivity analysis.

How Diagnostic Tests Affect Prevention: a Cost-Benefit Analysis

The purpose of this paper is to offers insight for evaluating research and development in diagnostic tests. We show that a rational policy maker perfectly informed about health risks may choose to reduce investment in prevention when efficient diagnostic tests become available. We show that prevention and diagnostic tests are substitutes rather than complements. As a result the regular improvements in diagnostic technology that are observed can justify a lower investment on prevention at any given unitary price for this activity. The analysis is a useful tool for the allocation of funding between diagnostic and preventive medicine.prevention, diagnostic tests

Diagnostic error reduction in the United States and Italy through the intervention of diagnostic management teams

A major challenge to most countries is the growing cost of healthcare. The cost of laboratory testing is approximately 3% of the total clinical costs. On the other hand, waste from inappropriate admissions to clinical departments is reported to be as high as 15%. A frequently used approach to save dollars in healthcare is the random reduction in the budget for laboratories, with a focus on reduction of the number of unnecessary laboratory tests. The World Health Assembly has approached the problem by publishing a list of essential in vitro diagnostic tests, in order to achieve a global rationalization of the problem. A much more thoughtful strategy to saving healthcare finance is to improve the efficiency of the diagnostic process. This report presents an opportunity to reduce diagnostic error and increase the efficiency of diagnostic testing. Reduction in time to a correct diagnosis provides a major financial as well as a clinical benefit. In addition, reducing both overutilization and underutilization of laboratory tests while achieving the correct diagnosis is a major benefit to challenged healthcare budgets. One approach taken to achieve major savings in healthcare has been the creation of “Diagnostic Management Teams,” composed of experts in specialty areas of medicine who are primarily based in the clinical laboratory to advise physicians on the selection of only necessary tests and the interpretation of complex test results

Diagnostic Accuracy of Five Serologic Tests for Strongyloides stercoralis Infection

Background:The diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis (S. stercoralis) infection is hampered by the suboptimal sensitivity of fecal-based tests. Serological methods are believed to be more sensitive, although assessing their accuracy is difficult because of the lack of sensitivity of a fecal-based reference ("gold") standard.Methods:The sensitivity and specificity of 5 serologic tests for S. stercoralis (in-house IFAT, NIE-ELISA and NIE-LIPS and the commercially available Bordier-ELISA and IVD-ELISA) were assessed on 399 cryopreserved serum samples. Accuracy was measured using fecal results as the primary reference standard, but also using a composite reference standard (based on a combination of tests).Results:According to the latter standard, the most sensitive test was IFAT, with 94.6% sensitivity (91.2-96.9), followed by IVD-ELISA (92.3%, 87.7-96.9). The most specific test was NIE-LIPS, with specificity 99.6% (98.9-100), followed by IVD-ELISA (97.4%, 95.5-99.3). NIE-LIPS did not cross-react with any of the specimens from subjects with other parasitic infections. NIE-LIPS and the two commercial ELISAs approach 100% specificity at a cut off level that maintains ≥70% sensitivity.Conclusions:NIE-LIPS is the most accurate serologic test for the diagnosis of S. stercoralis infection. IFAT and each of the ELISA tests are sufficiently accurate, above a given cut off, for diagnosis, prevalence studies and inclusion in clinical trials.Fil: Bisoffi, Zeno. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Buonfrate, Dora. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Sequi, Marco. Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri; ItaliaFil: Mejia, Rojelio. National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Cimino, Rubén Oscar. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Sede Regional Orán. Instituto de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Krolewiecki, Alejandro Javier. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Sede Regional Orán. Instituto de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Albonico, Marco. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Gobbo, Maria. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Bonafini, Stefania. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Angheben, Andrea. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Requena-Mendez, Ana. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Muñoz, José. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Nutman, Thomas B.. National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Estados Unido

The use of K39 test in the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis

From time to time patients admitted with fever of unknown origin prove to be a diagnostic dilemma. While textbooks describe typical symptoms and signs, and also diagnostic tests, these are not always helpful. The following are two case reports of patients who were eventually diagnosed to be suffering from visceral leishmaniasis. It is apparent that the usual diagnostic tools at our disposal were not enough to identify the disease and new tests were needed. The case reports have some similarities; both patients are male, diabetic, resident in Gozo but not of Gozitan stock. These factors could have reduced their immunity to visceral leishmaniasis, making them more susceptible to the disease.peer-reviewe

Increased use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests improves targeting of anti-malarial treatment in rural Tanzania: implications for nationwide rollout of malaria rapid diagnostic tests.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation of all malaria cases. Tanzania is implementing a phased rollout of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for routine use in all levels of care as one strategy to increase parasitological confirmation of malaria diagnosis. This study was carried out to evaluated artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) prescribing patterns in febrile patients with and without uncomplicated malaria in one pre-RDT implementation and one post-RDT implementation area. METHODS: A cross-sectional health facility surveys was conducted during high and low malaria transmission seasons in 2010 in both areas. Clinical information and a reference blood film on all patients presenting for an initial illness consultation were collected. Malaria was defined as a history of fever in the past 48 hours and microscopically confirmed parasitaemia. Routine diagnostic testing was defined as RDT or microscopy ordered by the health worker and performed at the health facility as part of the health worker-patient consultation. Correct diagnostic testing was defined as febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Over-testing was defined as a febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Correct treatment was defined as patient with malaria prescribed ACT. Over-treatment was defined as patient without malaria prescribed ACT. RESULTS: A total of 1,247 febrile patients (627 from pre-implementation area and 620 from post-implementation area) were included in the analysis. In the post-RDT implementation area, 80.9% (95% CI, 68.2-89.3) of patients with malaria received recommended treatment with ACT compared to 70.3% (95% CI, 54.7-82.2) of patients in the pre-RDT implementation area. Correct treatment was significantly higher in the post-implementation area during high transmission season (85.9% (95%CI, 72.0-93.6) compared to 58.3% (95%CI, 39.4-75.1) in pre-implementation area (p=0.01). Over-treatment with ACT of patients without malaria was less common in the post-RDT implementation area (20.9%; 95% CI, 14.7-28.8) compared to the pre-RDT implementation area (45.8%; 95% CI, 37.2-54.6) (p<0.01) in high transmission. The odds of overtreatment was significantly lower in post- RDT area (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR: 95%CI) 0.57(0.36-0.89); and much higher with clinical diagnosis adjusted OR (95%CI) 2.24(1.37-3.67) CONCLUSION: Implementation of RDTs increased use of RDTs for parasitological confirmation and reduced over-treatment with ACT during high malaria transmission season in one area in Tanzania. Continued monitoring of the national RDT rollout will be needed to assess whether these changes in case management practices will be replicated in other areas and sustained over time. Additional measures (such as refresher trainings, closer supervisions, etc) may be needed to improve ACT targeting during low transmission seasons