Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611381›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Correcting Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity for Patient Misclassifications Resulting from Use of an Imperfect Reference Standard.

Paul F Sherwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Paul F SherwinClinical Development, GE HealthCare, Marlborough, MA 01752, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3644-651X

Funding

GE Healthcare N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigational diagnostic tests are validated by using a reference standard (RS). If the RS is imperfect (i.e., it has sensitivity [Se] and/or specificity [Sp] < 1), incorrect values for the investigational test’s Se and Sp may result because of patient misclassification by the RS. Formulas were derived to correct a test’s Se and Sp that were determined by using an imperfect RS. The following derived formulas correct for misclassification and give the true numbers of disease-positive [nDP] and disease-negative patients [nDN] from the apparent number of disease-positive and disease-negative patients (anDP and anDN), and the Se and Sp of the RS (SeR, SpR): nDP = (anDP × SpR + anDN × SpR − anDN)/JR; nDN = (anDP × SeR + anDN × SeR − anDP)/JR, where JR is Youden’s Index for the RS (JR = SeR + SpR − 1). The following derived formulas give the correct Se and Sp of an investigational test (SeI and SpI): SeI = (anTPI × SpR − nDP × SeR × SpR + nDP × JR + nDN × SpR2 − nDN × SpR − SpR × anTNI + anTNI)/(nDP × JR); SpI = (anTPI − anTPI × SeR + nDP × SeR2 − nDP × SeR − SeR × nDN × SpR + nDN × JR + SeR × anTNI)/(nDN × JR), where anTPI is the apparent number of true-positive test results, and anTNI is the apparent number of true-negative test results. The derived formulas correct for patient misclassification by an imperfect RS and give the correct values of a diagnostic test’s Se and Sp.

Indexed as

imperfect standard of truthreference standardsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID36611381
PMCPMC9818831

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.