Covid-19 test accuracy supplement: The math of Bayes’ Theorem
Example 1: Low pre-test probability (asymptomatic patients in Massachusetts)
First, we need to estimate the pre-test probability that asymptomatic Massachusetts residents have Covid-19. We know that in the state approximately 2% of all tests for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, are positive. This is not exactly the same as the percentage of tested people who have Covid-19, but it’s a good approximation. Keep in mind, though, that 2% represents tests in people with and without symptoms, so it is likely higher by at least 2-fold (and maybe more) compared to testing only those without symptoms. So we estimate the pre-test probability as 1% in this group of asymptomatic Massachusetts residents.
In terms of test characteristics, let’s say the sensitivity of the rapid point-of-care test is 80%, as has been claimed for some of them. That would mean of 100 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, 80 of them would have positive tests and 20 would have negative tests:
Covid-19: Yes |
|
Test Positive |
80 |
Test Negative |
20 |
Total |
100 |
Since many of the tests report 100% specificity, let’s go with that estimate, even though there have been reports of possible false positive tests. For 100% specificity, among 100 people without Covid-19, all 100 would have negative tests:
Covid-19: No | |
Test Positive | 0 |
Test Negative | 100 |
Total | 100 |
Among 1,000 people of unknown Covid-19 status being tested, 1% will have the infection (from the pre-test probability). 1% of 1000 is 10, so 10 will have the disease, and 990 will not:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | |||
Test Negative | |||
Total | 10 | 990 | 1000 |
Of the 10 people with Covid-19, 80% of them will have a positive test because the sensitivity is 80%. 80% times 10 is 8. So 8 will have a positive test, and 2 will have a negative test:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | 8 | ||
Test Negative | 2 | ||
Total | 10 | 990 | 1000 |
Of the 990 people without Covid-19, 100% of them will have a negative test because the specificity is 100%. In other words, all 990 will have a negative test:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | 8 | 0 | 8 |
Test Negative | 2 | 990 | 992 |
Total | 10 | 990 | 1000 |
Now we can calculate positive and negative predictive values.
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | 8 | 0 | 8 |
Test Negative | 2 | 990 | 992 |
Total | 10 | 990 | 1000 |
Positive predictive value = having Covid-19 if the test is positive = 8/8 = 100%
Negative predictive value = not having Covid-19 if the test is negative = 990/992 = 99.8%
Example 2: High Pre-Test Probability (patients hospitalized with Covid-19 symptoms)
First, we estimated the pre-test probability among patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who presented with signs and symptoms of Covid-19, such as shortness of breath and fever. During the height of the surge in April, this was roughly 30%.
The sensitivity and specificity of the test remain the same as in Example 1: 80% sensitivity and 100% specificity (the test itself has not changed, only the group of people being tested).
Of 1,000 of these patients being tested, 300 will have Covid-19 and 700 will not:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | |||
Test Negative | |||
Total | 300 | 700 | 1000 |
Based on the sensitivity and specificity of the test, 80% of those 300 (240) with Covid-19 will have a positive test, and 100% of those 700 without Covid-19 will have a negative test:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | 240 | 0 | 240 |
Test Negative | 60 | 700 | 760 |
Total | 300 | 700 | 1000 |
Calculating positive and negative predictive values:
Covid-19: Yes | Covid-19: No | Total | |
Test Positive | 240 | 0 | 240 |
Test Negative | 60 | 700 | 760 |
Total | 300 | 700 | 1000 |
Positive predictive value = having Covid-19 if the test is positive = 240/240 = 100%
Negative predictive value = not having Covid-19 if the test is negative = 700/760 = 92%
This article uses a 20% false-negative rate for the rapid point of care tests; however, the authors are implicitly assuming that the false negatives are randomly distributed across viral loads. This is unlikely. The vast majority of those misses are at viral loads so low that the individual will not transmit the virus to other individuals. The vast majority of those “false” negatives occur after the individual being tested is no longer transmissible. This, of course, strengthens the excellent point the authors are making. Please see:
New Approaches to Covid-19: Rapid Testing, Herd Immunity, and the Role of Narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MEF4XX8w&t=4099s From 5:58 to 38:15
An Update on Covid-19 Testing, Treatments, and Vaccines Jul 30, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNADw5io9Ms from 5:30 to 27:15
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
TWiV 640: Test often, fast turnaround, with Michael Mina July 16, 2020
Journal Preprint
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v2
Med Cram
Coronavirus Pandemic Update 98: Home COVID-19 Testing – A Possible Breakthrough (Daily Quick Tests)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Sv_pS8MgQ&feature=youtu.be
Med Cram
COVID-19 Daily Quick Tests (Results in 15 Min.): How to Fix Testing with At Home Rapid Antigen Tests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP-MHKU_cQE