Estimation of the sensitivity and specificity of assays for screening antibodies to HIV: A comparison between the frequentist and Bayesian approaches

Bayesian and frequentist methods have been applied rarely to the same sets of data for evaluating assays for screening antibodies to HIV, especially for assays with relatively high sensitivities and/or specificities of 100% compared with reference assays. In this study, 95% confidence intervals and 95% Bayesian credible intervals were calculated for sensitivity and specificity for the evaluation of the accuracy of HIV antibody assays using data from China, WHO UNAIDS, USA, Australia, Tanzania, and India. When the sensitivity and/or specificity were 100%, a Bayesian approach obtained reasonable interval estimates of assays for screening antibodies to HIV, whereas frequentist methods express objectively the accuracy of each individual assay. It is suggested that the two types of estimates be reported simultaneously to evaluate more comprehensively a set of highly accurate antibodies for HIV assays.

► The Bayesian approach was applied to evaluate the assays for screening antibody to HIV. ► The Bayesian method was better than the frequentist method if sensitivity and/or specificity were complete. ► Two types of estimates should be reported to evaluate highly accurate HIV antibody assays.