Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40479924›Full record

ArticleComprehensive psychiatry2025

The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.

Veerle C Eijsbroek, Katarina Kjell, H Andrew Schwartz, Jan R Boehnke, Eiko I Fried, Daniel N Klein, Peik Gustafsson, Isabelle Augenstein, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Oscar N E Kjell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Veerle C EijsbroekDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: veerle.eijsbroek@psy.lu.se.
Katarina KjellDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
H Andrew SchwartzDepartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, New York, United States.
Jan R BoehnkeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Eiko I FriedInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Daniel N KleinDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University, New York, United States.
Peik GustafssonFaculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Isabelle AugensteinDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Patrick M M BossuytDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Oscar N E KjellDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Large-scale Data Scientific Assessment of Unhealthy Alcohol Consumption Among Front-Line Restaurant WorkersR01AA028032 · NIAAA · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI SCHWARTZ, HANSEN ANDREW · 2020 to 2023
$2.5M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA028032NIOSH CDC HHS U01 OH012476
6 · The paper itself

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

Guidelines as TopicMental DisordersPsychiatryDelphi TechniqueHumansLongitudinal StudiesResearch DesignAssessmentBest-estimate diagnosisExpert panelLongitudinal Expert All DataPsychiatryReportingStandard

Identifiers

PMID40479924
PMCPMC12584586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.