ArticlePloS one2012
Assessing diagnostic tests: how to correct for the combined effects of interpretation and reference standard.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetics of cerebral malaria: pathogenesis, biomarkers and emerging therapeutic interventions.Cell & bioscience · 2022Review
- Bayesian Interpretation of Essential Tremor Plus.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Review
- Comparative Accuracy of Developmental Screening Questionnaires.JAMA pediatrics · 2020Article
- The effect of uncertainty in patient classification on diagnostic performance estimations.PloS one · 2019Article
- Problematic gaming exists and is an example of disordered gaming.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2017Article
- Pathogenesis of cerebral malaria: new diagnostic tools, biomarkers, and therapeutic approaches.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2015Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of microEEG: a miniature, wireless EEG device.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We describe a general solution to the problem of determining diagnostic accuracy without the use of a perfect reference standard and in the presence of interpreter variability. The accuracy of a diagnostic test is typically determined by comparing its outcomes with those of an established reference standard. But the accuracy of the standard itself and those of the interpreters strongly influence such assessments. We use our solution to examine the effects of the properties of the standard, the reliability of the interpreters, and the prevalence of abnormality on the measured sensitivity and specificity. Our results provide a method of systematically adjusting the measured sensitivity and specificity in order to estimate their true values. The results are validated by simulations and their detailed application to specific cases are described.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.