Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T03:07:32.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exact confidence limits for prevalence of a disease with an imperfect diagnostic test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2010

J. REICZIGEL ,
J. FÖLDI  and
L. ÓZSVÁRI
J. REICZIGEL*
Affiliation:
Szent István University, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Budapest, Hungary
J. FÖLDI
Affiliation:
Intervet Hungary Ltd, Budapest, Hungary
L. ÓZSVÁRI
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Budapest, Hungary
*
*Author for correspondence: Dr J. Reiczigel, Szent István University, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Department of Biomathematics and Informatics, H-1078 Budapest, István u. 2, Hungary. (Email: reiczigel.jeno@aotk.szie.hu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Estimation of prevalence of disease, including construction of confidence intervals, is essential in surveys for screening as well as in monitoring disease status. In most analyses of survey data it is implicitly assumed that the diagnostic test has a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. However, this assumption is invalid in most cases. Furthermore, asymptotic methods using the normal distribution as an approximation of the true sampling distribution may not preserve the desired nominal confidence level. Here we proposed exact two-sided confidence intervals for the prevalence of disease, taking into account sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test. We illustrated the advantage of the methods with results of an extensive simulation study and real-life examples.

Keywords

Diagnostic testexact confidence intervalprevalence of diseasesensitivityspecificity

Information

Type
Original Papers
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 138 , Issue 11 , November 2010 , pp. 1674 - 1678
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

INTRODUCTION

Estimation of prevalence is a basic requirement in epidemiological studies. Authors usually accompany their observed sample prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the population prevalence, to give an impression of the precision of the estimate [Reference Barrio1, Reference Vyse, Hesketh and Pebody2]. In most cases, however, the diagnostic test is imperfect, i.e. it has a sensitivity and/or specificity less than 100% [Reference Aguilar-Setién3, Reference Alonso-Padilla4]. When the sensitivity and specificity of the test are known, the adjusted prevalence, also called true prevalence, is calculated according to the formula

(1)
prev_{{\rm adj}} {\equals \lpar }\hskip2pt prev_{{\rm obs}} {\plus }Sp \minus {\rm 1\rpar \sol \lpar }Se{\plus }Sp \minus {1\rpar \comma }\hfill

where prev adj, prev obs, Se, and Sp denote adjusted prevalence, observed prevalence (also called apparent prevalence), sensitivity, and specificity, respectively [Reference Rogan and Gladen5, Reference Thrusfield6].

CIs are given in most papers only for the observed prevalence without adjustment for sensitivity and specificity. Usually the simplest asymptotic method, the Wald method is used [Reference Grossman7, Reference Fernández-Limia8], but sometimes Wilson's score method [Reference Garcia-Vazquez9] or the exact Clopper–Pearson method is applied [Reference Moujaber10–Reference Coelho12].

CIs adjusted for sensitivity and specificity are rarely given, although Rogan & Gladen [Reference Rogan and Gladen5] described an appropriate modification of the asymptotic Wald method, which is also included in some textbooks [Reference Thrusfield6], and implemented in some computer programs [13]. In spite of this, some authors calculate CIs naively, adjusting the observed prevalence by the Rogan & Gladen formula, and then calculating a CI using the adjusted prevalence as if that were observed directly, i.e. without the necessary correction in the variance formula [Reference McCluskey14, Reference O'Brien15]. This method results in incorrect CIs, whose actual coverage at a nominal level of 95% can be as low as 60%, even for large samples. The exact Clopper–Pearson CI has been applied with adjustment for sensitivity and specificity in some papers, although infrequently [Reference Thiry16]. The problem regarding exact CIs for the adjusted prevalence is well illustrated by papers applying the exact Clopper–Pearson method for the observed and an asymptotic method for the adjusted prevalence [Reference Bartels17].

Here we apply the approach proposed by Cameron & Baldock [Reference Cameron and Baldock18] to calculate exact two-sided CIs adjusted for sensitivity and specificity. As the Clopper–Pearson method is known to be too conservative for two-sided intervals [Reference Agresti and Coull19, Reference Blaker20], we use Blaker's and Sterne's methods [Reference Blaker20–Reference Reiczigel22] providing shorter exact two-sided CIs.

METHODS

Both Blaker's and Sterne's CIs are derived by inverting the corresponding tests. Therefore we first defined how these tests can be adjusted for sensitivity and specificity. Both of them test for

H_{\rm \setnum{0}} {\colon \ }p{\equals }p_{{\rm hyp}} \quad {\rm against}\quad H_{\rm \setnum{1}} {\colon \ }p \ne p_{{\rm hyp}} {\comma }

where p and p hyp denote the unknown true population prevalence and its hypothesized value, respectively.

Assuming H 0 and binomial sampling distribution, the probability that a random sample of size n contains k subjects with the disease (k=0, 1, …, n) is

(2)
\left( {\matrix{ n \cr k \cr} } \right)p_{{\rm hyp}}^{k} \lpar 1 \minus p_{{\rm hyp}} \rpar ^{n \minus k}.\hfill

Given that the sample contains k subjects with the disease, and assuming that the diagnostic procedure has sensitivity Se and specificity Sp, we can calculate the probability that the number of subjects in the sample found to be positive is equal to m (m=0, 1, … , n). The formula for this is as follows:

(3)
\eqalign{\tab \sum\limits_{i \equals \setnum{0}}^{m} {\left( {\matrix{ k \cr i \cr} } \right)} Se^{i} \lpar 1 \minus Se\rpar ^{k \minus i} \left( {\matrix{ {n \minus k} \cr {m \minus i} \cr} } \right)\cr \tab\quad\times\lpar 1 \minus Sp\rpar ^{m \minus i} Sp^{n \minus k \minus m \plus i}.}\hfill

Combining equations (2) and (3), we observe that under H 0 the probability that the number of test positives in the sample is equal to m (m=0, 1, … , n) can be written as

(4)
\eqalign{P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar m\rpar \equals \tab \sum\limits_{k \equals \setnum{0}}^{n} {\left( {\matrix{ n \cr k \cr} } \right)p_{{\rm hyp}}^{k} \lpar 1 \minus p_{{\rm hyp}} \rpar ^{n \minus k}}\cr \tab \times { \left( {\sum\limits_{i \equals \setnum{0}}^{m} {\left( {\matrix{ k \cr i \cr} } \right)} Se^{i} \lpar 1 \minus Se\rpar ^{k \minus i}}\right.} \cr \tab \times {{\left. {\left( {\matrix{ {n \minus k} \cr {m \minus i} \cr} } \right)\lpar 1 \minus Sp\rpar ^{m \minus i} Sp^{n \minus k \minus m \plus i} } \right).}} \hfill

The principle of Sterne's method is that we order the sample space (i.e. the values 0, 1, …, n) according to their probabilities under H 0. From this it follows that the p value belonging to an observed number j of positives in the sample is

(5)
p_{j\comma H_{\setnum{0}} } \equals \sum\limits_{P_{{H_{\setnum{0}} }} \lpar i\rpar \leqslant P_{{H_{\setnum{0}} }} \lpar j\rpar } \hskip-15pt{P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar i\rpar } \comma \hfill

where P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar i\rpar denotes the probability defined by equation (4). In Blaker's test, we order the sample space according to a so-called acceptability function

(6)
A_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar m\rpar \equals \min \left( {\sum\limits_{i\les m} {P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar i\rpar } \comma \sum\limits_{i\geqslant m} {P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar i\rpar } } \right)\comma \hfill

resulting in a p value of

(7)
p_{j\comma H_{\setnum{0}} } \equals \sum\limits_{A_{{H_{\setnum{0}} }} \lpar i\rpar \leqslant A_{{H_{\setnum{0}} }} \lpar \hskip1.5pt j\hskip1pt\rpar } \hskip-15pt{P_{H_{\setnum{0}} } \lpar i\rpar }.\hfill

Inversion of these tests results in exact two-sided CIs for prevalence. Test inversion means that observing j positives in the sample, the level 1−α CI runs from the smallest to the largest such p hyp value, for which the test results in a p value P_{j \comma H_{\setnum{0}} } greater than α. Blaker's CI has the advantage that it is always contained in the Clopper–Pearson interval, whereas Sterne's CI, in spite of being slightly more narrow on average than Blaker's CI, may sometimes deliver intervals even wider than the Clopper–Pearson CI.

It should be noted that the proposed CIs do not have equal error probabilities in the two tails, thus one-sided intervals cannot be calculated from the two-sided ones in the usual way. For an exact one-sided CI the Clopper–Pearson method [Reference Clopper and Pearson23] should be used.

SIMULATION RESULTS

An extensive simulation study was performed to explore the coverage properties of the different methods and to compare the length of resulting 95% CIs. In the simulation we varied sensitivity and specificity 50%, 70%, 90%, 95%, 100%; true population prevalence 1%, 5%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and sample size 50, 100, 200, 500. From each combination of sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, and sample size, we generated 10 000 random samples and determined 95% CIs by the Wald, Wilson, Clopper–Pearson, Sterne, and Blaker methods. [Detailed results of the simulation study with respect to actual coverage (actual confidence level) and average length can be found on the website of the first author, http://www.univet.hu/users/jreiczig/prevalence-with-se-sp.html.] Simulation with 10 000 replications implies that the standard error of the obtained coverage probabilities is about 0·2%.

The actual coverage of the 95% Wald interval was often <90%, in particular when prevalence was <30%. In the worst cases, with low prevalence (1%), low sensitivity (50%), and high specificity (100%), the coverage was as low as 22·3% (n=50), 38·5% (n=100), 62·6% (n=200), and 85·9% (n=500). The actual coverage of the 95% Wilson interval was considerably better (worst case coverage was 90·8%, 91·5%, 92·1%, 93·9% for n=50, 100, 200, 500, respectively). Similarly to the Wald method, lowest coverage occurred in the case of low prevalence and sensitivity, combined with high specificity.

Exact methods produced in general longer intervals than the Wilson CI. In case of low prevalence, low sensitivity and high specificity the Sterne CI turned out to be even longer than the Clopper–Pearson interval. In these cases, Blaker's CI was the shortest, it was even shorter than the Wilson interval, in spite of the lower coverage of the latter (Table 1). If true prevalence was between 30% and 70%, the Sterne interval was the shortest among exact intervals.

Table 1.

Examples in which Blaker's CI proved to be narrower than Wilson's CI while its coverage probability was higher at the same time

EXAMPLE

Coelho et al. [Reference Coelho12] conducted a survey to estimate the prevalence of ovine paratuberculosis in sheep flocks in the northeast of Portugal. Presence of antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis was investigated using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. According to the manufacturer, the kit has sensitivity between 50% and 65% and specificity >99·5%. These authors [Reference Coelho12] present the seroprevalence values obtained by ELISA for each region, and also give exact Clopper–Pearson CIs for the apparent prevalence. However, they do not correct for test sensitivity and specificity. Table 2 illustrates that exactness of the CI does not prevent bias due to ignoring test imperfectness. The upper confidence limit adjusted for sensitivity and specificity turns out to be twice as high as the unadjusted one. Results without adjustment may lead to over-optimistic estimates of the infection status. Comparing the last three columns of Table 2, it can be seen that the Sterne interval is somewhat (by about 2·5%), and the Blaker interval slightly more (by about 3·5%) shorter than the Clopper–Pearson interval.

Table 2.

Seroprevalence estimates of ovine paratuberculosis in sheep in selected regions in Portugal by Coelho et al. [Reference Coelho12]. Seropositivity was determined using an ELISA test with sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 99·5%, respectively

Further examples are available at the first author's website (see Simulation Results section).

DISCUSSION

Here we focused on CI construction, although the proposed methods can also be applied to two-tailed testing, leading to more powerful exact tests. It should be noted that the principles can also be applied to hypergeometric distribution as, i.e. to estimate prevalence in a finite population, adjusted for sensitivity and specificity.

It can be proved that transforming the exact lower and upper confidence limits obtained for apparent prevalence by the Rogan & Gladen formula (1) results in an exact CI for the true prevalence. This leads to an easy implementation of the method. Transformation of asymptotic confidence limits results of course in an asymptotic interval for the true prevalence with coverage comparable to that of the CI for the apparent prevalence. However, the naive method, in which the CI is calculated using the adjusted prevalence as if that value had been actually observed, turns out to be inappropriate. For example, simulating with sensitivity=85%, specificity=90%, and prevalence=3% demonstrates that a 95% two-sided CI constructed in this way has an actual coverage probability of <60%, regardless of whether an asymptotic or an exact CI calculation method is applied.

Computer programs (R functions as well as stand-alone programs for Microsoft Windows) for the described methods are available on the first author's website (see Simulation Results section), together with programs for sample size calculations to the proposed procedures. Note that the Sterne method is also worked out for the difference and ratio of two prevalences from independent samples, including tests and CIs [Reference Reiczigel, Abonyi-Tóth and Singer24]. A future task is to extend this to the case of imperfect tests allowing for different sensitivities and specificities.

How much more narrow the proposed CIs could be than the Clopper–Pearson interval depends on sensitivity, specificity, sample size and true prevalence. According to the simulation results, if true prevalence is between 30% and 70%, Sterne's CI is more narrow than Blaker's CI, whereas for <20% and >80% it is wider. Therefore, if we have prior information about the prevalence, we can choose between the methods. Note that here the expected true population prevalence is meant, not the observed sample prevalence. Choosing the method according to the observed sample prevalence will result in a CI worse than any one of the two methods.

Wilson's score interval, although asymptotic, performed much better than the Wald interval. It can be regarded as appropriate for sample sizes >500. The 92% worst case coverage for samples of ⩽200 cannot be compensated by its length. It was surprising that in some cases Blaker's CI was more narrow on average than Wilson's CI while its coverage was higher at the same time. A few illustrative examples are given in Table 1.

In extreme cases (prevalence=0·01 or 0·02, sensitivity=0·50, specificity=1, n=50), Sterne's CI was longer than the Clopper–Pearson interval. Blaker's CI has the advantage that this cannot occur. As its length never exceeds that of Sterne's CI, and that sometimes it is even narrower than Wilson's asymptotic interval, we propose Blaker's CI for general use.

It should be noted that the proposed methods assume that sensitivity and specificity are known exactly. These values are used in the procedure as fixed numbers known without any uncertainty. If they are estimated from an experiment of comparable size, then the uncertainty in sensitivity and specificity estimates should be accounted for in the CI construction, finally resulting in wider CIs. Rogan & Gladen [Reference Rogan and Gladen5] described how this can be done for the Wald interval, but currently it has not been developed for exact intervals.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of disease prevalence may be seriously biased if sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test are disregarded. In case of known sensitivity and specificity CIs are easy to adjust by applying the Rogan & Gladen transformation to the CI endpoints. Since asymptotic methods may not maintain the prescribed confidence level, we propose calculating exact CIs, in particular for sample sizes of ⩽200. Without any prior information on the true population prevalence we propose Blaker's method, as the resulting CI is always contained in the Clopper–Pearson CI. Note that if one-sided exact CIs are needed, the Clopper–Pearson interval is the only available option.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the two anonymous referees for their comments that led to a considerable improvement of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

1.Barrio, G, et al. Prevalence of HIV infection among young adult injecting and non-injecting heroin users in Spain in the era of harm reduction programmes: gender differences and other related factors. Epidemiology and Infection 2007; 135: 592–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Vyse, AJ, Hesketh, LM, Pebody, RG. The burden of infection with cytomegalovirus in England and Wales: how many women are infected in pregnancy? Epidemiology and Infection 2009; 137: 526–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Aguilar-Setién, A, et al. Dengue virus in Mexican bats. Epidemiology and Infection 2008; 136: 1678–1683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Alonso-Padilla, J, et al. The continuous spread of West Nile virus (WNV): seroprevalence in asymptomatic horses. Epidemiology and Infection 2009; 137: 1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Rogan, WJ, Gladen, B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. American Journal of Epidemiology 1978; 107: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Thrusfield, MV. Veterinary Epidemiology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, pp. 610.Google Scholar
7.Grossman, Z, et al. Absence of Kaposi sarcoma among Ethiopian immigrants to Israel despite high seroprevalence of human herpesvirus 8. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2002; 77: 905–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Fernández-Limia, O, et al. Prevalence of Candida albicans and Trichomonas vaginalis in pregnant women in Havana City by an immunologic latex agglutination test. Medscape General Medicine 2004; 6: 50.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Garcia-Vazquez, Z, et al. Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum antibodies in beef cattle in three southern states of Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2009; 41: 749–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Moujaber, T, et al. The seroepidemiology of Helicobacter pylori infection in Australia. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008; 12: 500–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Claerebout, E, et al. Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in Northern Belgium. Veterinary Parasitology 2009; 161: 41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Coelho, AC, et al. Seroprevalence of ovine paratuberculosis infection in the Northeast of Portugal. Small Ruminant Research 2007; 71: 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Epi Tools. Online pidemiological calculators, AusVet Animal Health Services, 2004. (http://epitools.ausvet.com.au). Accessed 10 July 2009.Google Scholar
14.McCluskey, BJ, et al. A 3-year pilot study of sentinel dairy herds for vesicular stomatitis in El Salvador. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2003; 58: 199–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.O'Brien, DJ, et al. Estimating the true prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging elk in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Disease 2008; 44: 802–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Thiry, J, et al. Serological evidence of caprine herpesvirus 1 infection in Mediterranean France. Veterinary Microbiology 2008; 128: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Bartels, CJ, et al. Supranational comparison of Neospora caninum seroprevalences in cattle in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology 2006; 137: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Cameron, AR, Baldock, FC. A new probability formula for surveys to substantiate freedom from disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 1998; 34: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Agresti, A, Coull, BA. Approximate is better than ‘exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. American Statistician 1998; 52: 119–126.Google Scholar
20.Blaker, H. Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distributions. Canadian Journal of Statistics 2000; 28: 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Sterne, TE. Some remarks on confidence or fiducial limits. Biometrika 1954; 41: 275–278.Google Scholar
22.Reiczigel, J. Confidence intervals for the binomial parameter: some new considerations. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22: 611–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Clopper, CJ, Pearson, ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934; 26: 404–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Reiczigel, J, Abonyi-Tóth, Z, Singer, J. An exact confidence set for two binomial proportions and exact unconditional confidence intervals for the difference and ratio of proportions. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2008; 52: 5046–5053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Examples in which Blaker's CI proved to be narrower than Wilson's CI while its coverage probability was higher at the same time

Figure 1

Table 2. Seroprevalence estimates of ovine paratuberculosis in sheep in selected regions in Portugal by Coelho et al. [12]. Seropositivity was determined using an ELISA test with sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 99·5%, respectively