Estimating Sensitivity of Laboratory Testing for Influenza in Canada through Modelling

Schanzer, Dena L.; Garner, Michael J.; Hatchette, Todd F.; Langley, Joanne M.; Aziz, Samina; Tam, Theresa W. S.

While there are limitations with this approach, there are no other simple alternatives to assist in the interpretation of the RVDSS data. It would have been helpful to analyze data based on each specimen sent for testing. With only the number of weekly tests and number of positive results, we were unable to calculate the number of specimens that were actually found to be negative for all four viruses, or to estimate the extent of co-infection. Coinfection, which was not accounted for in our model, could result in an under-estimation of the number of falsely negative tests, as the attribution of an influenza negative test that was actually coinfected with influenza and another respiratory virus would have to be split between the viruses. With auxiliary information associated with each specimen, model estimates of false negative rates based on, for example, test type, time since onset of symptoms, age of the patient, or clinical presentation would have allowed us to explore the reasons for the high false negative rates. As the false negative rate appears to be laboratory dependant (data not shown), this estimated range is applicable only to the RVDSS for the study period. A significant reduction in the false negative rate is anticipated as methods become standardized and with the uptake of the new RT-PCR methods. As positive results, particularly for culture, are often obtained a week or more after the specimen was received, some positive results may have been reported in a different week than the test. Multiple test results for a single specimen may have also contributed to reporting irregularities. These irregularities would tend to bias the estimated parameter towards zero, and hence the estimated sensitivity towards 1. Considering the overall model fit and the relative severity of influenza [1] , we conclude that our estimate of sensitivity may be slightly over-estimated (number of false negatives under-estimated).