Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39843787›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Evaluating the Performance of Non-invasive Tests for Colorectal Cancer: Statistical Considerations.

Patrick M Bossuyt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. 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.

Patrick M BossuytDepartment Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.m.bossuyt@uva.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Like all interventions in health care, novel non-invasive tests for colorectal cancer should be properly evaluated before they can be recommended. Such evaluations should be performed in well-designed studies, of which the results can serve as the evidence base for recommendations. While the methods for evaluating novel tests have been slower to develop, there is now a solid base for developing suggestions and even strong recommendations for their assessment. These include advice for study design, analysis of results, and clear and informative reporting. These considerations should be guided by the intended use of the new test and its role in the testing pathway. We distinguish between tests proposed as a replacement for an existing test, as a triage test, before an existing test, or as an add-on test, after an existing test. We recommend the definition of explicit, a priori defined, minimally acceptable performance criteria for the intended use of the new test and rigorous statistical hypothesis testing, to prevent "spin" in the interpretation of the findings.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansOccult BloodResearch DesignDiagnostic accuracySensitivitySpecificityTest evaluation

Identifiers

PMID39843787
PMCPMC12125054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.