ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Determining the Optimal Sequence of Multiple Tests.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiovascular risk-prediction models in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Determining the Optimal Sequence of Multiple Tests.Statistics in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of multiple tests can improve medical decision making by balancing the benefits of correctly treating ill patients and avoiding unnecessary treatment for healthy individuals against the potential harms of missed diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and the costs and risks associated with testing. We quantify the incremental net benefit (INB) of single and multiple tests by accounting for a patient's pre-test probability of disease and the associated benefits, harms, and cost of treatment and testing. We decompose the INB into two components: one that captures the value of information provided by the test, independent of the cost and possible harm of testing, and another that accounts for test costs and harm. Next, we examine conjunctive, disjunctive, and majority aggregation functions, demonstrating their application through examples in prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and stable coronary artery disease diagnostics. Our approach complements traditional threshold and decision-curve analysis by varying both the pre-test probability of disease and the cost-benefit trade-off of treatment to identify the region over which a given test provides the highest INB. Using empirical test and cost data, we compute decision boundaries to determine when conjunctive, disjunctive, majority, or even single tests are optimal, and, for combinations of tests, in what order they should be administered. In all three application examples, we find that the optimal choice and sequence of tests jointly depend on the probability of disease and the cost-benefit trade-off of treatment. An online tool that visualizes the INB for combined tests is available at https://optimal-testing.streamlit.app/.
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.