Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42605268›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2026

The Undertesting Bias in Clinical Decision Making: The Role of Test Dichotomization.

Murat C Mungan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 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

1 author.

Murat C MunganTexas A&M University.ORCID 0000-0003-1948-6488

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Threshold models, formalized by Pauker and Kassirer, guide clinical decisions about testing and treatment by partitioning pretest probabilities into three action zones using two threshold pretest probabilities: the test threshold and the test-treatment threshold. This derivation implicitly assumes that diagnostic tests possess fixed sensitivity and specificity, effectively treating them as binary predictors. However, many diagnostic tests yield continuous or ordinal outputs, in which case the optimal sensitivity-specificity pair varies with the pretest probability. I demonstrate that abstracting from this dependency leads to an undertesting bias: the testing threshold is inflated and/or the test-treatment threshold is deflated, resulting in a narrower than optimal testing window. This bias systematically undervalues continuous diagnostic tests and leads to their underuse. Clinical decision-making models and guidelines should therefore recognize that optimal test score cutoffs depend on pretest probabilities to avoid this systematic underuse of diagnostic testing.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineBiasClinical RelevanceHumansProbabilitySensitivity and Specificityclinical decision makingdiagnostic testsdichotomizationPauker-Kassirer modelpretest probabilitiesthreshold models

Identifiers

PMID42605268
PMCPMC13601696

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.