ReviewBiochemia medica2016
On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: the case of tests with continuous results.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 344 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
344 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Renal cell carcinoma detection: a systematic review in diagnostic urinary biomarkers.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Global perspectives on the Sleep Condition Indicator for DSM-5 insomnia disorder: a COSMIN and STARD systematic review of psychometric and diagnostic performance.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Detection of periodontal bone loss and periodontitis from 2D dental radiographs via machine learning and deep learning: systematic review employing APPRAISE-AI and meta-analysis.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Deep learning or radiomics based on CT for predicting the response of gastric cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of the visceral adiposity index in patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis.Lipids in health and disease · 2022Pooled it
- Factors predicting long-term outcomes following physiotherapy in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: a secondary analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Trial
- The Arabic Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2 (GAD-2): Psychometric evaluation among mothers of children with intellectual disabilities.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Beyond accuracy: how often and in which direction diagnostic tests err.Biochemia medica · 2026Review
- Differentiating high- and low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma using radiomics: a pilot study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Observational
- Early prediction of severe morbidity after liver resection using serum albumin and ALBI-score in a mixed patient cohort.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Systemic inflammation indices generated from first-trimester blood tests can be potential biomarkers for predicting preeclampsia.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- NavegApp, a serious game for assessing spatial cognition: Diagnostic accuracy in preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Determining the quality of life-aged care consumer threshold to identify good quality of life in older adults in long-term care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Scoping Review on True and Relative Bradycardia in Trauma: How to Approach Bradycardia in Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Review
- Psychometric properties of the Spanish structured interview of personality organization revised (STIPO-R) in a clinical and community sample.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2026Article
- Developing and validating ultrasound-based machine-learning models incorporating radiomics features to predict malignancy in adnexal masses.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Observational
- Radiomics-based ultrasOund Model for differentiating Uterine Sarcomas from leiomyomas (ROMUS): a retrospective pilot Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Observational
- How reliable are ROC cut-offs? Evidence from simulation and empirical analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries and associated risk factors in Brazilian esports players: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Prospective evaluation of clinical prediction rules for brief resolved unexplained event.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Article
284 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are several criteria for determination of the most appropriate cut-off value in a diagnostic test with continuous results. Mostly based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, there are various methods to determine the test cut-off value. The most common criteria are the point on ROC curve where the sensitivity and specificity of the test are equal; the point on the curve with minimum distance from the left-upper corner of the unit square; and the point where the Youden's index is maximum. There are also methods mainly based on Bayesian decision analysis. Herein, we show that a proposed method that maximizes the weighted number needed to misdiagnose, an index of diagnostic test effectiveness we previously proposed, is the most appropriate technique compared to the aforementioned ones. For determination of the cut-off value, we need to know the pretest probability of the disease of interest as well as the costs incurred by misdiagnosis. This means that even for a certain diagnostic test, the cut-off value is not universal and should be determined for each region and for each disease condition.
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.