ReviewBiochemia medica2023
On determining the sensitivity and specificity of a new diagnostic test through comparing its results against a non-gold-standard test.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combination of serum TBL1XR1, MFAP5, and PSA as diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- 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
- Advances in Cellular and Molecular Biology Assays: A Review of Gold Standard Methods.International journal of innovative science and research technology · 2025Article
- Dual-Channel Colloidal Gold-Based Immunochromatographic Test Strip for Rapidly Differentiating Between Two Major Groups ofBiosensors · 2025Article
- Diagnostic tests performance indices: an overview.Biochemia medica · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based algorithms applied to drug prescriptions and other healthcare services in the Sicilian claims database to identify acromegaly as a model for the earlier diagnosis of rare diseases.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic tests are important clinical tools. To assess the sensitivity and specificity of a new test, its results should be compared against a gold standard. However, the gold-standard test is not always available. Herein, I show that we can compare the new test against a well-established diagnostic test (not a gold-standard test, but with known sensitivity and specificity) and compute the sensitivity and specificity of the new test if we would have compared it against the gold-standard test. The technique presented is useful for situations where the gold standard is not readily available.
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.