Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42294800›Full record

ArticleJournal of periodontal research2026

Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Beyond.

Nancy Vegas, Lisa Friedlander, Jérémie F Cohen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of periodontal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Nancy VegasDepartment of General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases, APHP, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Paris, France.
Lisa FriedlanderParis Cité University, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3056-3624
Jérémie F CohenDepartment of General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases, APHP, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3572-8985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are central to medical care, and their evaluation remains methodologically challenging. This methodological article outlines the key measures used to quantify diagnostic accuracy, highlights common sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy studies, and discusses how the clinical effectiveness of medical tests can be evaluated. Examples of diagnostic tests from various fields, including clinical, radiographic, biomarker, and emerging AI-based approaches, are discussed. We argue that diagnostic accuracy represents only the first step in test evaluation and must be complemented by assessments of feasibility, clinical impact, and patient-centered outcomes.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID42294800
PMCPMC13665641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.