Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Room J1B-214, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;126:172-176. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.037. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
In battling the COVID-19 pandemic, testing is essential. The detection of viral RNA allows the identification of infected persons, whereas the detection of antibodies may reveal a response to a previous infection. Tests for coronavirus should be rigorously evaluated in terms of their analytical and clinical performance. This poses not only logistic challenges, but also methodological ones. Some of these are generic for the diagnostic accuracy paradigm, whereas others are more specific for tests for viruses. Problematic for evaluations of the clinical performance of tests for viral RNA is the absence of an independent reference standard. Many studies lack rigor in terms of the recruitment of study participants. Study reports are often insufficiently informative, which makes it difficult to assess the applicability of study findings. Attempts to summarize the performance of these tests in terms of a single estimate of the clinical sensitivity fail to do justice to the identifiable sources of the large heterogeneity in mechanisms for generating false negative results.
在抗击 COVID-19 大流行的过程中,检测至关重要。病毒 RNA 的检测可识别感染者,而抗体的检测可能表明曾发生过感染。针对冠状病毒的检测应从分析和临床性能方面进行严格评估。这不仅带来了后勤方面的挑战,还有方法学方面的挑战。其中一些挑战是诊断准确性范式所共有的,而另一些则更为具体,针对病毒检测。评估病毒 RNA 检测的临床性能时存在的一个问题是缺乏独立的参考标准。许多研究在研究参与者的招募方面不够严谨。研究报告往往信息不足,这使得评估研究结果的适用性变得困难。试图用单一的临床敏感性估计值来概括这些检测的性能,并不能公正地反映出导致假阴性结果的机制存在明显异质性的潜在来源。