ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025
Targeted test evaluation: five suggestions for refining the framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies with clear study hypotheses.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Five years ago, Korevaar and colleagues proposed a framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies, focusing on the definition of clear study hypotheses. This proposal filled a gap and was well received by the scientific community. In this commentary, I suggest five potential refinements. They aim at increasing the flexibility of the framework while pertaining its logical consistency. The refinements address the following five topics: (1) The relationship between minimal criteria and the choice of the null hypothesis region; (2) The potential to allow compensation between sensitivity and specificity; (3) The possibility to use other pairs than sensitivity and specificity; (4) The potential phrasing as an estimation problem; (5) The advantages of directly moving to a comparative accuracy study.
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.