ArticleF1000Research
Bayes Lines Tool (BLT): a SQL-script for analyzing diagnostic test results with an application to SARS-CoV-2-testing.
Article in F1000Research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of diagnostic tests crucially depends on the disease prevalence, test sensitivity, and test specificity. However, these quantities are often not well known when tests are performed outside defined routine lab procedures which make the rating of the test results somewhat problematic. A current example is the mass testing taking place within the context of the world-wide SARS-CoV-2 crisis. Here, for the first time in history, laboratory test results have a dramatic impact on political decisions. Therefore, transparent, comprehensible, and reliable data is mandatory. It is in the nature of wet lab tests that their quality and outcome are influenced by multiple factors reducing their performance by handling procedures, underlying test protocols, and analytical reagents. These limitations in sensitivity and specificity have to be taken into account when calculating the real test results. As a resolution method, we have developed a Bayesian calculator, the Bayes Lines Tool (BLT), for analyzing disease prevalence, test sensitivity, test specificity, and, therefore, true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative numbers from official test outcome reports. The calculator performs a simple SQL (Structured Query Language) query and can easily be implemented on any system supporting SQL. We provide an example of influenza test results from California, USA, as well as two examples of SARS-CoV-2 test results from official government reports from The Netherlands and Germany-Bavaria, to illustrate the possible parameter space of prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity consistent with the observed data. Finally, we discuss this tool's multiple applications, including its putative importance for informing policy decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.