Letters to the Editor

Beware of the Differing Definitions for the False-Positive Rate

 

Am Fam Physician. 2021 Jan 1;103(1):7-8.

Original Article: Beware of False-Positive Results with SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests [Letter to the Editor]

Issue Date: July 1, 2020

Available at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2020/0701/p5a.html

To the Editor: We read with interest the warning issued by Drs. Ebell and Barry regarding false-positive rates in antibody testing in their Letter to the Editor. We agree that testing in low-prevalence populations will result in a large number of false-positive test results. Because multiple definitions of the false-positive rate exist, it is important to state which definition is being used.1

We are most familiar with the false-positive rate being defined as the complement of the specificity as in the evidence-based medicine glossary provided by American Family Physician.24 Using this definition, Table 1 from their letter, which “summarizes the false-positive rates at various population prevalence [levels],” does not make sense because specificity does not change with prevalence. The middle column of Table 1 lists a specificity of 96%; consequently, the false-positive rate should be 4% in all of the cells. The right column of Table 1 lists a specificity of 99%; consequently, the false-positive rate should be 1% in all of the cells. We agree that specificity may change based on other patient characteristics, and that patient characteristics may affect the estimate of the prevalence used in the calculations.

The definition of the false-positive rate used in Table 1 and in the text of their letter is the proportion of positive tests that are falsely positive, which in effect is the complement of the positive predictive value. Because the positive predictive value increases with the prevalence of the disease in the population, then, as shown in Table 1, the complement of the positive predictive value would decrease with the prevalence. We agree that this definition of a false-positive rate leads the reader to the relevant clinical question5; if the test result is positive, what is the probability that the disease is present?

Similar to the HIV epidemic, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that has caused the current pandemic has brought the diagnostic process to the forefront of academic and lay discussions. We believe it is essential to recognize that the differing definitions of false-positive rate can have profound implications for public health and clinical decision-making.1

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

References

show all references

1. Germanson T. Screening for HIV: can we afford the confusion of the false positive rate? J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(12):1235–1237....

2. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology. A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Little, Brown and Company; 1985.

3. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

4. American Academy of Family Physicians. EBM glossaries. Accessed July 17, 2020. https://www.aafp.org/journals/afp/authors/ebm-toolkit/glossary.html

5. Stovitz SD. Confusion surrounding false-positive rates: distinguishing the definition from the important clinical question. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2014;13(2):69–70.

In Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful commentary on our research letter. We agree that the common use of the term false-positive rate is to describe the converse of specificity (i.e., one minus specificity). In the accompanying table, we list commonly used parameters for test accuracy.

The false-positive rate is commonly calculated as B / (B + D), which Dr. Stovitz and colleagues point out is the converse of specificity. For example, in a receiver operating characteristic curve, we plot the true-positive rate vs. false-positive rate. However, we were trying to communicate the likelihood of a false-positive test among all patients with a positive test. This is also a false-positive rate (actually, a ratio, but let's not quibble), just not the one commonly used in textbooks. There is no commonly used term for our false-positive rate, which is B / (A + B), so we took the liberty of also calling it a “false-positive rate.”

 Enlarge     Print

TABLE

Calculating Parameters of Test Accuracy

COVID-19 +Not COVID-19 −

Serology +

A

B

Serology −

C

D

Sensitivity = A / (A + C)

True-positive rate = A / (A + C)

Specificity = D / (B + D)

False-positive rate = B / (B + D)

Positive predictive value = A / (A + B)

Posttest probability of a positive test = A / (A + B)

Negative predictive value = D / (C + D)

Posttest probability of a negative test = C / (C + D)


COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.

TABLE

Calculating Parameters of Test Accuracy

COVID-19 +Not COVID-19 −

Serology +

A

B

Serology −

C

D

Sensitivity = A / (A + C)

True-positive rate = A / (A + C)

Specificity = D / (B + D)

False-positive rate = B / (B + D)

Positive predictive value = A / (A + B)

Posttest probability of a positive test = A / (A + B)

Negative predictive value = D / (C + D)

Posttest probability of a negative test = C / (C + D)


COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Send letters to afplet@aafp.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.

Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.

This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.

 

 

Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Oct 2021

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article