Abstract
Diagnostic studies include all clinical studies the aim of which is the evaluation of a new diagnostic test. In the evaluation process, the main step is the evaluation of the performance of the new test i.e. its sensitivity and specificity. Usually, the performance of a new test is assessed by comparison to a test of reference which is supposed to be perfect, i.e. a "gold standard", and specifies the actual patient’s status for the disease of interest (“Diseased” or “Not-Diseased” status). However, in many clinical situations, different pitfalls exist such as (i) a gold standard is not available, (ii) the gold standard is not applicable to all patients, (iii) a conditional dependence exists between test results, (iv) the performance of a test is not constant and depends on the conditions of achievement of the test, (v) the tests are repeated in time or by several machines or read by several readers, together with multiple interpretation of the results. A systematic methodological review has been performed to inventory all Bayesian inference methods available in the field of diagnostic studies and their use in practice. The focus on Bayesian methods was based on the theoretical advantages of these methods contrasting with their relative underutilization in the medical field. Finally, several interesting methods have been proposed to address methodological issues of diagnostic studies, with very complex developments when several issues were combined in the same clinical situation. We propose to map the development methods and combinations that have already been done or not. However, their clinical use is still limited, although it has increased in recent years.In practice, we met the problem of the diagnosis of pneumonia due to Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJ). PJ is an ubiquitous opportunistic fungus leading to deep mycosis in immunocompromised patients. In this study, the results of four PCR (polymerase chain reaction) assays were available, but without any gold standard, and the supplementary difficulty of conditional dependence between tests because the four tests were based on the same principle. Two works were performed in parallel to address this issue: on one hand, an adaptation of methods to elicit prior information specifically in diagnostic studies, and on the other hand, the implementation of specific Bayesian statistical models adapted to the context of four-dependent tests in the absence of gold standard. When informative information is not available in the literature, the elicitation of priors, the mandatory first step of a Bayesian inference, is carried out by registering experts’ beliefs in the field. Our work consisted in an adaptation of existing methods, available in clinical trials, specifically for diagnostic studies to obtain informative priors. We then applied this method to our four PJ PCR assays. Estimation of the diagnostic test performance in absence of gold standard is efficiently based on latent class models (LCM). Three LCM were developed for the case of two diagnostic tests: a simple LCM assuming conditional independence between tests, a fixed effects LCM and a random effects LCM providing an adjustment for conditional dependence between tests. We extended these three models to a situation where four diagnostic tests are involved and proposed a formulation that enables an interpretation of between tests covariances in a clinical perspective in order to bind theory to practice. These models were then applied and compared in an estimation study of the sensitivities and specificities of the four PJ PCR assays, by using informative priors obtained from experts.