Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699296›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

The LEADING Guideline: Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

Veerle C Eijsbroek, Katarina Kjell, H Andrew Schwartz, Jan R Boehnke, Eiko I Fried, Daniel N Klein, Peik Gustafsson, Isabelle Augenstein, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Oscar N E Kjell

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Veerle C EijsbroekDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0000-7632-4085
Katarina KjellDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6744-3592
H Andrew SchwartzDepartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, New York, the United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6383-3339
Jan R BoehnkeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0003-0249-1870
Eiko I FriedInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7469-594X
Daniel N KleinDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University, New York, the United State.
Peik GustafssonFaculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6767-7169
Isabelle AugensteinDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1562-7909
Patrick M M BossuytDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4427-0128
Oscar N E KjellDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2728-6278

Funding

Large-scale Data Scientific Assessment of Unhealthy Alcohol Consumption Among Front-Line Restaurant WorkersR01AA028032 · NIAAA · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI SCHWARTZ, HANSEN ANDREW · 2020 to 2023
$2.5M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA028032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a more accurate or best-estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method. However, the quality of such best-estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when they are reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here, we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such best-estimate assessment studies. Methods: The development of the reporting guidelines followed a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published studies report the standards. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10 to 63% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected studies. Results: The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Conclusions: We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.

Indexed as

Best-Estimate DiagnosisCriterion standardExpert PanelGold standardLEADMedical assessmentsPsychiatric assessmentsPsychological assessmentsReference standard

Identifiers

PMID38699296
PMCPMC11065032

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.