ArticleComprehensive psychiatry2025
The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.
Article in Comprehensive psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Need for Mental Health Support From Free-Text Responses: Development and Validation of Language-Based Assessments in Adults With Internalizing Symptoms.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Natural Language Response Formats for Assessing Depression and Worry With Large Language Models: A Sequential Evaluation With Model Pre-Registration.Assessment · 2026Article
- Clinicians' practices and attitudes toward depression assessment: a cross-sectional survey study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Oculomotor Function in Children and Adolescents with Autism, ADHD or Co-occurring Autism and ADHD.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Expert panel as reference standard procedure in diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic scoping review and methodological guidance.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Review
- New horizons in personality disorders-from neglect to necessity in geriatric care.Age and ageing · 2025Review
- Beyond rating scales: With targeted evaluation, large language models are poised for psychological assessment.Psychiatry research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a best-estimate assessment. This assessment method is called the Expert Panel method in medicine, and the Best-Estimate Diagnosis or Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method in psychiatry and psychology. However, due to poor reporting of the assessment methods, the quality of pro-claimed best-estimate assessments is typically difficult to evaluate, and when the method is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. To tackle this gap, we have developed a reporting guideline following a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having researchers test it and ii) applying it to previously published studies. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10-63 % (Mean 33 %) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected published studies. The result is the LEADING guideline comprising 20 reporting standards in four groups: the Longitudinal design, the Appropriate data, the Evaluation - experts, materials and procedures, and the Validity group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will assist researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.
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.