ReviewClinical chemistry2019
Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.
Review in Clinical chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Numbers: Assessing Clinical Risk Associated with Significant Magnesium Assay Bias.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Are Your Laboratory Data Reproducible? The Critical Role of Imprecision from Replicate Measurements to Clinical Decision-making.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Accuracy of glomerular filtration rate estimation using creatinine and cystatin C for identifying and monitoring moderate chronic kidney disease: the eGFR-C study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- A Software Tool for Estimating Uncertainty of Bayesian Posterior Probability for Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Antagonist and Tegafur-Uracil Chemohormonal Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sigma metrics application for validated and non-validated detecting systems performance assessment.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- A Software Tool for Calculating the Uncertainty of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Software Tool for Exploring the Relation between Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Uncertainty.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Antithrombin: Deficiency, Diversity, and the Future of Diagnostics.Mass spectrometry reviewsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor medical tests that have a central role in clinical decision-making, current guidelines advocate CONTENT: A methodology review consisting of database searches and extensive citation tracking was conducted to identify studies using indirect methods to incorporate or evaluate the impact of test measurement uncertainty on downstream outcomes (including clinical accuracy, clinical utility, and/or costs). Eighty-two studies were identified, most of which evaluated the impact of imprecision and/or bias on clinical accuracy. A common analytical framework underpinning the various methods was identified, consisting of 3 key steps: (
conclusionsVarious approaches are available for conducting indirect assessments to inform outcome-based performance specifications. This study provides an overview of methods and key considerations to inform future studies and research in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.