ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Correcting Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity for Patient Misclassifications Resulting from Use of an Imperfect Reference Standard.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance Analysis of Commercial SARS-CoV-2 RNA Detection Assays: Implications for Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, and Diagnostic Response Time.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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
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.