Cited by 405Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyReliability and Agreement in Measurement

A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard

Open access
Reitsma, Johannes B., Rutjes, Anne W.S., Khan, Khalid S., Coomarasamy, Arri, Bossuyt, Patrick M.·2009·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective In diagnostic accuracy studies, the reference standard may be imperfect or not available in all patients. We systematically reviewed the proposed solutions for these situations and generated methodological guidance.Study design and setting Review of methodological articles.Results We categorized the solutions into four main groups. The first group includes methods that impute or adjust for missing data on the reference standard. The second group consists of methods that correct estimates of accuracy obtained with an imperfect reference standard. In the third group a reference standard is constructed by combining multiple test results through a predefined rule, based on a consensus procedure, or through statistical modeling. In the fourth group, the diagnostic accuracy paradigm is abandoned in favor of validation studies that relate index test results to relevant clinical data, such as history, future clinical events, and response to therapy.Conclusion Most of the methods try to impute, adjust, or construct a reference standard. In situations that deviate only marginally from the classical diagnostic accuracy paradigm, these are valuable methods. In cases where an acceptable reference standard does not exist, the concept of clinical test validation may provide an alternative paradigm to evaluate a diagnostic test.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 84 · Cited by 405

Authors
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Birmingham Women's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Reitsma, Johannes B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
62
Issue
8
Pages
797-806
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102269881
Cited by
405
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 28
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
diagnostic accuracy, imperfect reference standard, methodological recommendations
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Reference Standards, Software Design, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review