Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

in reply to @Brommers

It does if you compare the results of the test applied over a population with the actual number of results in that population

Which I've said a few times, including in the post you quote. "What does change is the raw number of positive and negative results due to there being more people who can get false negatives."

, which is how you would define the accuracy of the results generally.

If you mean sample population, sure. Not general population. Otherwise how would you ever be able to judge the accuracy of a pregnancy test? It would change by the minute. (well, not vastly. It would change based on geographical location though.).

The accuracy being referred to is, by definition, the accuracy of the results from a set group of people, not merely an individual. Because without referring to a group, you can't work out the actual probability of you being positive to whatever's being tested.

Yes. I've said this.

Am I the one who is being unclear?

•

Greenbank in reply to @

Which I've said a few times, including in the post you quote. "What does change is the raw number of positive and negative results due to there being more people who can get false negatives."

As I've shown above, the numbers derived are not what was expected even when you use the same sample set that was used to measure the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

The non-intuitive bit is because of the question being asked, which is "How accurate is the test for a specific result?" and not "How accurate is the test overall?"

About

Avatar for Greenbank @Greenbank started