Gaffikin Lynne, McGrath John A, Arbyn Marc, Blumenthal Paul D
Cervical Cancer Prevention Program, JHPIEGO, Baltimore, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Jul 31;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-36.
The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of an alternative cervical cancer test - visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) - by addressing possible imperfections in the gold standard through latent class analysis (LCA). The data were originally collected at peri-urban health clinics in Zimbabwe.
Conventional accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) estimates for VIA and two other screening tests using colposcopy/biopsy as the reference standard were compared to LCA estimates based on results from all four tests. For conventional analysis, negative colposcopy was accepted as a negative outcome when biopsy was not available as the reference standard. With LCA, local dependencies between tests were handled through adding direct effect parameters or additional latent classes to the model.
Two models yielded good fit to the data, a 2-class model with two adjustments and a 3-class model with one adjustment. The definition of latent disease associated with the latter was more stringent, backed by three of the four tests. Under that model, sensitivity for VIA (abnormal+) was 0.74 compared to 0.78 with conventional analyses. Specificity was 0.639 versus 0.568, respectively. By contrast, the LCA-derived sensitivity for colposcopy/biopsy was 0.63.
VIA sensitivity and specificity with the 3-class LCA model were within the range of published data and relatively consistent with conventional analyses, thus validating the original assessment of test accuracy. LCA probably yielded more likely estimates of the true accuracy than did conventional analysis with in-country colposcopy/biopsy as the reference standard. Colposcopy with biopsy can be problematic as a study reference standard and LCA offers the possibility of obtaining estimates adjusted for referent imperfections.
本研究的目的是通过潜在类别分析(LCA)解决金标准中可能存在的缺陷,从而验证一种替代宫颈癌检测方法——醋酸肉眼检查(VIA)的准确性。数据最初收集于津巴布韦的城郊诊所。
将VIA以及其他两种筛查检测方法以阴道镜检查/活检作为参考标准的传统准确性(敏感性/特异性)估计值,与基于所有四项检测结果的LCA估计值进行比较。对于传统分析,当活检无法作为参考标准时,阴性阴道镜检查被视为阴性结果。使用LCA时,通过向模型添加直接效应参数或额外的潜在类别来处理检测之间的局部依赖性。
两个模型对数据拟合良好,一个是有两次调整的2类模型,另一个是有一次调整的3类模型。与后者相关的潜在疾病定义更为严格,得到了四项检测中的三项支持。在该模型下,VIA(异常+)的敏感性为0.74,而传统分析为0.78。特异性分别为0.639和0.568。相比之下,LCA得出的阴道镜检查/活检的敏感性为0.63。
3类LCA模型得出的VIA敏感性和特异性在已发表数据范围内,且与传统分析相对一致,从而验证了对检测准确性的原始评估。与以国内阴道镜检查/活检作为参考标准的传统分析相比,LCA可能得出更接近真实准确性的估计值。阴道镜检查加活检作为研究参考标准可能存在问题,而LCA提供了获得针对参考缺陷进行调整的估计值的可能性。