ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
%diag_test: a generic SAS macro for evaluating diagnostic accuracy measures for multiple diagnostic tests.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasures of diagnostic test accuracy provide evidence of how well a test correctly identifies or rules-out disease. Commonly used diagnostic accuracy measures (DAMs) include sensitivity and specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), area under precision-recall curves (AUPRC), diagnostic effectiveness (accuracy), disease prevalence, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) etc. Most available analysis tools perform accuracy testing for a single diagnostic test using summarized data. We developed a SAS macro for evaluating multiple diagnostic tests using individual-level data that creates a 2 × 2 summary table, AUROC and AUPRC as part of output.
methodsThe SAS macro presented here is automated to reduce analysis time and transcription errors. It is simple to use as the user only needs to specify the input dataset, "standard" and "test" variables and threshold values. It creates a publication-quality output in Microsoft Word and Excel showing more than 15 different accuracy measures together with overlaid AUROC and AUPRC graphics to help the researcher in making decisions to adopt or reject diagnostic tests. Further, it provides for additional variance estimation methods other than the normal distribution approximation.
resultsWe tested the macro for quality control purposes by reproducing results from published work on evaluation of multiple types of dried blood spots (DBS) as an alternative for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load (VL) monitoring in resource-limited settings compared to plasma, the gold-standard. Plasma viral load reagents are costly, and blood must be prepared in a reference laboratory setting by a qualified technician. On the other hand, DBS are easy to prepare without these restrictions. This study evaluated the suitability of DBS from venous, microcapillary and direct spotting DBS, hence multiple diagnostic tests which were compared to plasma specimen. We also used the macro to reproduce results of published work on evaluating performance of multiple classification machine learning algorithms for predicting coronary artery disease.
conclusionThe SAS macro presented here is a powerful analytic tool for analyzing data from multiple diagnostic tests. The SAS programmer can modify the source code to include other diagnostic measures and variance estimation methods. By automating analysis, the macro adds value by saving analysis time, reducing transcription errors, and producing publication-quality outputs.
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.