[BostonCard]

Thanks.  I would like to see testing for specificity done in much larger samples.  The 95% CI for three positive tests in 108 is 0.0058 to 0.079 (inother words .58% to 7.9%), which is very broad and doesn't really help answer the question as to whether the Stanford study result was real or can be explained with false positives.

I'd like to see the tests looked at in at least 2000 known negative samples, which would narrow down the CI to ± 0.5% if the point estimate is 1% (the CI is broader if the specificity is lower, and narrower if the specificity is higher), but if the specificity is lower than 99%, then the tests are probably not fit for purpose for low prevalence community antibody testing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks.  I would like to see testing for specificity done in much larger samples.  The 95% CI for three positive tests in 108 is 0.0058 to 0.079 (inother words .58% to 7.9%), which is very broad and doesn't really help answer the question as to whether the Stanford study result was real or can be explained with false positives.

I'd like to see the tests looked at in at least 2000 known negative samples, which would narrow down the CI to ± 0.5% if the point estimate is 1% (the CI is broader if the specificity is lower, and narrower if the specificity is higher), but if the specificity is lower than 99%, then the tests are probably not fit for purpose for low prevalence community antibody testing.

BC