SynthesisPLoS medicine2013
Use of expert panels to define the reference standard in diagnostic research: a systematic review of published methods and reporting.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
69 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoring Systems for Organ Dysfunction and Multiple Organ Dysfunction: The PODIUM Consensus Conference.Pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Candidate Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Pooled it
- Consensus Approaches to Identify Incident Dementia in Cohort Studies: Systematic Review and Approach in the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery Study.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: the ACUTE feasibility RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Classifying the diagnosis of study participants in clinical trials: a structured and efficient approach.European radiology experimental · 2020Trial
- A novel host-proteome signature for distinguishing between acute bacterial and viral infections.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Assessing the Need for Mental Health Support From Free-Text Responses: Development and Validation of Language-Based Assessments in Adults With Internalizing Symptoms.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking large language models against practicing clinicians on psychopathological assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of a Clinical Decision-Support Algorithm for Chronic Wound Classification and Treatment: An Expert Consensus.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Reply to Schouten et al. Comment on "Bilika et al. Applying Nociplastic Pain Criteria in Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Vignette Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Refining competency benchmarks: a scoping review of Angoff standard-setting in dental education.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of an ICF-Based Instrument to Assess Work Ability in Occupational Health Care.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of a video expert panel in assessing respiratory rate from recorded videos for the diagnosis of non-severe paediatric pneumonia.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Using artificial intelligence to model expert panel diagnosis of cholecystitis severity.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2025Article
- Application of RNA-seq for single nucleotide variation identification in a cohort of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard. METHODS AND
findingsPubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies.
conclusionsMethods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
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.