ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2021
Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The diagnostic role of the systemic inflammation index in patients with immunological diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the neonatal eating assessment tool-breastfeeding (NeoEAT-Breastfeeding).BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Performance of the 2023 diagnostic criteria for MOGAD: real-world application in a Chinese multicenter cohort of pediatric and adult patients.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of the Salzburg EEG criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024Article
- Meteorological factors and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in metropolitan France.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Turkish adaptation of the Neonatal Eating Assessment Tool-Bottle-Feeding in preterm infants discharged to home.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Development of a nutritional risk screening tool for preterm children in outpatient settings during a complementary feeding period: a pilot study.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Performance of the Newly Proposed Peguero-Lo Presti Criterion in Adults with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Cost-accuracy and patient experience assessment of blood pressure monitoring methods to diagnose hypertension: A comparative effectiveness study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
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
As technology advances, diagnostic tests continue to improve and each year, we are presented with new alternatives to standard procedures. Given the plethora of diagnostic alternatives, diagnostic tests must be evaluated to determine their place in the diagnostic armamentarium. The first step involves determining the accuracy of the test, including the sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios for positive and negative tests, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The role of the test in a diagnostic pathway has then to be determined, following which the effect on patient outcome should be examined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33871852What 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.