Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31603953›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard - An update.

Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere, Kevin Wilson, Sara Graziadio, Luke Vale, A Joy Allen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Chinyereugo M Umemneku ChikereInstitute of Health & Society, Faculty of Medical Sciences Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4114-2227
Kevin WilsonSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom.
Sara GraziadioNational Institute for Health Research, Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom.
Luke ValeInstitute of Health & Society, Faculty of Medical Sciences Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom.
A Joy AllenNational Institute for Health Research, Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review methods developed and employed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test when there is a missing or no gold standard. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Articles that proposed or applied any methods to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test(s) in the absence of gold standard were reviewed. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018089349).

resultsIdentified methods were classified into four main groups: methods employed when there is a missing gold standard; correction methods (which make adjustment for an imperfect reference standard with known diagnostic accuracy measures); methods employed to evaluate a medical test using multiple imperfect reference standards; and other methods, like agreement studies, and a mixed group of alternative study designs. Fifty-one statistical methods were identified from the review that were developed to evaluate medical test(s) when the true disease status of some participants is unverified with the gold standard. Seven correction methods were identified and four methods were identified to evaluate medical test(s) using multiple imperfect reference standards. Flow-diagrams were developed to guide the selection of appropriate methods.

conclusionVarious methods have been proposed to evaluate medical test(s) in the absence of a gold standard for some or all participants in a diagnostic accuracy study. These methods depend on the availability of the gold standard, its' application to the participants in the study and the availability of alternative reference standard(s). The clinical application of some of these methods, especially methods developed when there is missing gold standard is however limited. This may be due to the complexity of these methods and/or a disconnection between the fields of expertise of those who develop (e.g. mathematicians) and those who employ the methods (e.g. clinical researchers). This review aims to help close this gap with our classification and guidance tools.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicReference StandardsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31603953
PMCPMC6788703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.