ArticleAssessment2015
Adapting the posterior probability of diagnosis index to enhance evidence-based screening: an application to ADHD in primary care.
Article in Assessment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations Between ADHD Symptoms and Diagnosis Across the Preschool Period.Journal of attention disorders · 2026Article
- Advancing Research on Suicide and Mental Health in Autistic Adults Through a Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)-Inspired Framework.Autism in adulthood · 2025Article
- The Importance of Calibration in Clinical Psychology.Assessment · 2020Article
- A data mining and item response mixture modeling method to retrospectively measure Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the 1970 British Cohort Study.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2019Article
- Evidence-Based Assessment from Simple Clinical Judgments to Statistical Learning: Evaluating a Range of Options Using Pediatric Bipolar Disorder as a Diagnostic Challenge.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2018Article
- DrKnow: A Diagnostic Learning Tool with Feedback from Automated Clinical Decision Support.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Increased microsaccade rate in individuals with ADHD traits.Journal of eye movement research · 2017Article
- Article
- Beyond Symptom Counts for Diagnosing Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder?Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study adapts the Posterior Probability of Diagnosis (PPOD) Index for use with screening data. The original PPOD Index, designed for use in the context of comprehensive diagnostic assessments, is overconfident when applied to screening data. To correct for this overconfidence, we describe a simple method for adjusting the PPOD Index to improve its calibration when used for screening. Specifically, we compare the adjusted PPOD Index to the original index and naïve Bayes probability estimates on two dimensions of accuracy, discrimination and calibration, using a clinical sample of children and adolescents (N = 321) whose caregivers completed the Vanderbilt Assessment Scale to screen for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and who subsequently completed a comprehensive diagnostic assessment. Results indicated that the adjusted PPOD Index, original PPOD Index, and naïve Bayes probability estimates are comparable using traditional measures of accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve), but the adjusted PPOD Index showed superior calibration. We discuss the importance of calibration for screening and diagnostic support tools when applied to individual patients.
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.