Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error.

Multiplex panel tests identify many individual pathogens at once, using a set of component tests. In some panels the number of components can be large. If the panel is detecting causative pathogens for a single syndrome or disease then we might estimate the burden of that disease by combining the results of the panel, for example determining the prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia as caused by many individual pneumococcal serotypes. When we are dealing with multiplex test panels with many components, test error in the individual components of a panel, even when present at very low levels, can cause significant overall error. Uncertainty in the sensitivity and specificity of the individual tests, and statistical fluctuations in the numbers of false positives and false negatives, will cause large uncertainty in the combined estimates of disease prevalence. In many cases this can be a source of significant bias. In this paper we develop a mathematical framework to characterise this issue, we determine expressions for the sensitivity and specificity of panel tests. In this we identify a counter-intuitive relationship between panel test sensitivity and disease prevalence that means panel tests become more sensitive as prevalence increases. We present novel statistical methods that adjust for bias and quantify uncertainty in prevalence estimates from panel tests, and use simulations to test these methods. As multiplex testing becomes more commonly used for screening in routine clinical practice, accumulation of test error due to the combination of large numbers of test results needs to be identified and corrected for. Author summary: During analysis of pneumococcal incidence data obtained from serotype specific multiplex urine antigen testing, we identified that despite excellent test sensitivity and specificity, the small error rate in each individual serotype test has the potential to compound and cause large uncertainty in the resulting estimates of pneumococcal prevalence, obtained by combining individual results. This limits the accuracy of estimates of the burden of disease caused by vaccine preventable pneumococcal serotypes, and in certain situations can produce marked bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]