Abstract
Objectives The COVID-19 has led to many studies of seroprevalence. A number of methods exist in the statistical literature to correctly estimate disease prevalence in the presence of diagnostic test misclassification, but these methods seem to be less known and not routinely used in the public health literature. We aimed to show how widespread the problem is in recent publications, and to quantify the magnitude of bias introduced when correct methods are not used.
Methods We examined a sample of recent literature to determine how often public health researcher did not account for test performance in estimates of seroprevalence. Using straightforward calculations, we estimated the amount of bias introduced when reporting the proportion of positive test results instead of using sensitivity and specificity to estimate disease prevalence.
Results Of the seroprevelance studies sampled, 87% failed to account for sensitivity and specificity. Expected bias is often more than is desired in practice, ranging from 1% to 10%.
Conclusions Researchers conducting studies of prevalence should correctly account for test sensitivity and specificity in their statistical analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Ciao Corona study, used in our example, is part of Corona Immunitas research network, coordinated by the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), and funded by fundraising of SSPH+ that includes funds of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and private funders (ethical guidelines for funding stated by SSPH+ will be respected), by funds of the Cantons of Switzerland (Vaud, Zurich, and Basel) and by institutional funds of the Universities. Additional funding, specific to this study is available from the University of Zurich Foundation. No additional funding was acquired for the analysis presented here.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (2020-01336).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Addition of a review of methods used in the recent literature. Minor changes to methods and introductions.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
