A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
A latent class model was used because of the imperfect or missing reference standard.
“This latent class model was used because of the imperfect or missing reference standard [33].”
From Evaluation of Xpert® MTB/RIF and Ustar EasyNAT™ TB IAD for diagnosis of tuberculous lymphadenitis of children in Tanzania: a prospective descriptive study (2016) · cites this paper as [33]
The reference standard could introduce bias due to misclassification of participants.
“We also considered the possibility that the reference standard could introduce bias due to misclassification of participants (fig.2) [34,35].”
From Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [35]
A composite reference standard itself may have reduced specificity that could result in apparent false-negative Xpert results, leading to an underestimation of Xpert's true sensitivity.
“However, a CRS itself may have reduced specificity that could result in apparent false-negative Xpert results, leading to an underestimation of Xpert's true sensitivity [35,36].”
From Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as [35]
The indexed text appears to be a different paper: its references (p. 4) list Reitsma et al. (2009) rather than presenting that paper’s text. Although its CRS section (p. 3) discusses diagnostic-test sensitivity, this copy cannot establish whether the cited Reitsma review supports the claimed chain from reduced CRS specificity to underestimated Xpert sensitivity. Searches for CRS specificity and false-negative results did not resolve the mismatch. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
- Semantic Scholar
- ba5634da8b01b9533c9aecea3eee03cbb08c77f1
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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