Differentiating between analytical and diagnostic performance evaluation with a focus on the method comparison study and identification of bias

Abstract

Prior to introduction of a new method to the diagnostic laboratory, analytical performance must be validated to ensure operation within the manufacturer's specifications and/or within predetermined quality requirements. In addition, the new method may require diagnostic performance assessment to ensure it differentiates between diseased and nondiseased individuals as intended. These 2 phases of assessment, while complementary, are not equivalent and require a different set of experiments, statistical analyses, and interpretation. Studies of analytical performance typically include a method comparison experiment, the purpose of which is to identify bias (inaccuracy) of the "test" (or "index") method (new method) relative to a "comparative method" (established method). Analysis of method comparison data is facilitated by commercial software programs that present the statistical significance of identified bias; however, the clinical relevance of any bias also should be considered. Studies of diagnostic performance should not be pursued until analytical performance is fully characterized and may not be required for well-established tests or for those for which results are nonspecific (ie, not referable to a specific disease or condition). Diagnostic performance assessment may include assessment of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, odds ratios, and/or likelihood ratios. The purpose of this review is to clarify differences between the assessment of analytical and diagnostic performance, and to explore the method comparison study and bias assessment from a perspective not addressed in prior veterinary articles.

Keywords: Agreement; disease diagnosis; error; method validation; quality requirement.