ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
Comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect reference standard - a comparison of correction methods.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proof-of-concept of bayesian latent class modelling usefulness for assessing diagnostic tests in absence of diagnostic standards in mental health.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Behavior of test specificity under an imperfect gold standard: findings from a simulation study and analysis of real-world oncology data.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Increasing our knowledge about the epidemiology ofInternational journal of circumpolar health · 2024Article
- The Arabic EAT-10 and FEES in dysphagia screening among cancer patients: a comparative prospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Adjusting Covariate Misclassification in Electronic Health Records-Based Machine Learning Prediction Models.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Comparison of the AmpFire® Multiplex HPV Assay to the Xpert® HPV Assay for detection of human papillomavirus and cervical disease in women with human immunodeficiency virus: a pragmatic performance evaluation.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Effects of Expert-Determined Reference Standards in Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of a Deep Learning Model: A Malignant Lung Nodule Detection Task on Chest Radiographs.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound scan in the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Correcting Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity for Patient Misclassifications Resulting from Use of an Imperfect Reference Standard.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of pelvic examination in pelvic inflammatory disease: A meta-analysis.Journal of general and family medicine · 2022Article
- Prediction models for SIRS, sepsis and associated organ dysfunctions in paediatric intensive care: study protocol for a diagnostic test accuracy study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
- Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Immunochromatographic Test (ICT) and Filariasis Test Strip (FTS) for Detecting Lymphatic Filariasis Antigen in American Samoa, 2016.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaquet et al. and Brenner both developed correction methods to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of a binary-response index test when the reference standard is imperfect and its sensitivity and specificity are known. However, to our knowledge, no study has compared the statistical properties of these methods, despite their long application in diagnostic accuracy studies.
aimTo compare the correction methods developed by Staquet et al. and Brenner.
methodsSimulations techniques were employed to compare the methods under assumptions that the new test and the reference standard are conditionally independent or dependent given the true disease status of an individual. Three clinical datasets were analysed to understand the impact of using each method to inform clinical decision-making.
resultsUnder the assumption of conditional independence, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner correction method irrespective of the prevalence of disease and whether the performance of the reference standard is better or worse than the index test. However, when the prevalence of the disease is high (> 0.9) or low (< 0.1), the Staquet et al. correction method can produce illogical results (i.e. results outside [0,1]). Under the assumption of conditional dependence; both methods failed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the index test especially when the covariance terms between the index test and the reference standard is not close to zero.
conclusionWhen the new test and the imperfect reference standard are conditionally independent, and the sensitivity and specificity of the imperfect reference standard are known, the Staquet et al. correction method outperforms the Brenner method. However, where the prevalence of the target condition is very high or low or the two tests are conditionally dependent, other statistical methods such as latent class approaches should be considered.
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.