Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29368061›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2018

Comparative Test Evaluation: Methods and Challenges.

Blase Gambino

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Blase GambinoAmerican Academy of Health Care Providers in the Addictive Disorders, 10 Ellet Street, Boston, MA, 02122-2940, USA. blasegambino@comcast.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1093-0178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present paper has three objectives. First, methods for comparing alternative tests for the purpose of replacement of one test with a second presumably superior test are described. Second, problems in the interpretation of the relevance of different diagnostic thresholds (thresholds of positivity) that define who is and who is not a disordered gambler are examined and a potential solution offered in the form of a common quantitative measure of the risk of being a disordered gambler. Third, alternative methodologies are described as potential solutions to the lack of a gold or reference standard in the evaluation of new tests.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques and ProceduresProcess Assessment, Health CareFalse Positive ReactionsGamblingHumansPredictive Value of TestsPsychometricsReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsResearchSensitivity and SpecificityClinical relevanceDiagnostic thresholdsProblem severityReference standardsRelative accuracyTest evaluation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.