ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2018
Understanding test accuracy research: a test consequence graphic.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Knowledge translation of prediction rules: methods to help health professionals understand their trade-offs.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2021Article
- Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: an analysis of accuracy and completeness.BMJ open · 2020Observational
- The IN-DEEP project "INtegrating and Deriving Evidence, Experiences, Preferences": a web information model on magnetic resonance imaging for people with multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2020Article
- Added value and cascade effects of inflammatory marker tests in UK primary care: a cohort study from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPresenting results of diagnostic test accuracy research so that it is accessible to users is challenging. Commonly used accuracy measures (e.g. sensitivity and specificity) are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. Evidence suggests that presenting probabilities as natural frequencies rather than percentages facilitates understanding. We present a test consequence graphic to display results based on natural frequencies and test consequences.
methodsThe graphic was developed as part of a project to develop guidance for writing plain language summaries for Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews. Using a mixed methods approach (focus groups, user testing, web-based surveys, public engagement and piloting), the graphic emerged as a clear preference out of a range of methods for presenting probabilistic information (text only, numbers embedded in text, annotated graphic) across patient representatives, media representatives and health professionals. The structure of the graphic was refined during the research process.
resultsThe test consequence graphic displays the results of diagnostic test accuracy study or review as natural frequencies based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients receiving the test.
conclusionsThe test consequence graphic provides a tool to help researchers communicate the results of diagnostic research in a simple, easy to access format and encourage meaningful application of research findings to practice. Key to this is linking estimates of test accuracy to potential downstream consequences of testing.
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.