ReviewDiagnostic and prognostic research2024
A review of methods for the analysis of diagnostic tests performed in sequence.
Review in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening and diagnosis of liver disease in diabetes: a guide and evidence-based assessment.Diabetologia · 2026Review
- Practice and challenges of newborn hearing screening: analysis of a five-year database in Italy.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Full Factorial Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Three Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits and Three PRRSV RT-qPCR Assays Using Swine Oral Fluids of Known Status.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- PRICE: a personalized recursive intelligent cost effectiveness analysis framework for rare disease diagnosis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundMany clinical pathways for the diagnosis of disease are based on diagnostic tests that are performed in sequence. The performance of the full diagnostic sequence is dictated by the diagnostic performance of each test in the sequence as well as the conditional dependence between them, given true disease status. Resulting estimates of performance, such as the sensitivity and specificity of the test sequence, are key parameters in health-economic evaluations. We conducted a methodological review of statistical methods for assessing the performance of diagnostic tests performed in sequence, with the aim of guiding data analysts towards classes of methods that may be suitable given the design and objectives of the testing sequence.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for relevant papers describing methodology for analysing sequences of diagnostic tests. Papers were classified by the characteristics of the method used, and these were used to group methods into themes. We illustrate some of the methods using data from a cohort study of repeat faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients, to highlight the importance of allowing for conditional dependence in test sequences and adjustment for an imperfect reference standard.
resultsFive overall themes were identified, detailing methods for combining multiple tests in sequence, estimating conditional dependence, analysing sequences of diagnostic tests used for risk assessment, analysing test sequences in conjunction with an imperfect or incomplete reference standard, and meta-analysis of test sequences.
conclusionsThis methodological review can be used to help researchers identify suitable analytic methods for studies that use diagnostic tests performed in sequence.
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.