SynthesisBMJ open2015
How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Point-Of-Care aMMP-8 Test for Discriminating Periodontal Health Status in Adults: Validation Trials and Updated Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Pooled it
- Target Product Profiles for medical tests: a systematic review of current methods.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Global Functioning and Mental Health Parameters: Examining Interplay and Improvements in Inpatient Psychiatry.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026Article
- TRIAGE: Trustworthy Reporting and Assessment for Clinical Gain and Effectiveness of AI Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cognitive readiness of nurses regarding artificial intelligence predictions: understanding through the dual lens of verbatim and gist knowledge.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Repeated exposure rivals lightweight training in Bayesian inference: accuracy, retention, and generalization.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Direct-to-consumer self-tests sold in the UK in 2023: cross sectional review of information on intended use, instructions for use, and post-test decision making.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Utility of disease probability scores to guide decision-making during screening for phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a machine learning modelling cross sectional study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Misalignment of Biostatistics Content Between Licensing Exam Study Aids and Contemporary Medical Research.Family medicine · 2025Article
- Reference Values of Skin Autofluorescence by Age Groups in Healthy Spanish Adults: Results from the EVasCu Study, a Systematic Review, and a Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Interpretation of results of PCR and B-D-glucan for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis Jirovecii Pneumonia in immunocompromised adults with acute respiratory failure.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Article
- No prediction without prevention: A global qualitative study of attitudes toward using a prediction tool for risk of developing depression during adolescence.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- Healthcare providers consistently overestimate the diagnostic probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- A modified renal angina index in critically ill patients with COVID-19.Renal failure · 2023Article
- Article
- Family physicians overestimate diagnosis probabilities regardless of the test results.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether clinicians differ in how they evaluate and interpret diagnostic test information.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to September 2013; bibliographies of retrieved studies, experts and citation search of key included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary studies that provided information on the accuracy of any diagnostic test (eg, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) to health professionals and that reported outcomes relating to their understanding of information on or implications of test accuracy.
resultsWe included 24 studies. 6 assessed ability to define accuracy metrics: health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity. -25 studies assessed Bayesian reasoning. Most assessed the influence of a positive test result on the probability of disease: they generally found health professionals' estimation of post-test probability to be poor, with a tendency to overestimation. 3 studies found that approaches based on likelihood ratios resulted in more accurate estimates of post-test probability than approaches based on estimates of sensitivity and specificity alone, while 3 found less accurate estimates. 5 studies found that presenting natural frequencies rather than probabilities improved post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations.
conclusionsCommonly used measures of test accuracy are poorly understood by health professionals. Reporting test accuracy using natural frequencies and visual aids may facilitate improved understanding and better estimation of the post-test probability of disease.
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.