Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 828

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios

Grimes, David A, Schulz, Kenneth F·2005·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66422-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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/s0140-6736(05)66422-7

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Reid, 1998, Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians' use of quantitative measures of test accuracy, Am J Med, 104, 374, 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00054-0 · DOI
  2. Steurer, 2002, Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study, BMJ, 324, 824, 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824 · DOI
  3. Feinstein, 1977, Clinical biostatistics: XXXIX—the haze of Bayes, the aerial palaces of decision analysis, and the computerized Ouija board, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 21, 482, 10.1002/cpt1977214482 · doi:10.1002/cpt1977214482
  4. Grimes, 2002, Uses and abuses of screening tests, Lancet, 359, 881, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07948-5 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Naylor, 1995, Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine, Lancet, 345, 840, 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92969-X · DOI · Paper page
  6. Choi, 1998, Slopes of a receiver operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratios for a diagnostic test, Am J Epidemiol, 148, 1127, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009592 · DOI
  7. Giard, 1990, Interpretation of diagnostic cytology with likelihood ratios, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 114, 852
  8. Lee, 1999, Selecting diagnostic tests for ruling out or ruling in disease: the use of the Kullback-Leibler distance, Int J Epidemiol, 28, 521, 10.1093/ije/28.3.521 · DOI
  9. Khan, 1999, Misleading authors' inferences in obstetric diagnostic test literature, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 181, 112, 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70445-X · DOI
  10. Jaeschke, 1994, Users' guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test—B, what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?, JAMA, 271, 703, 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330081039 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hayden, 1999, Likelihood ratio: a powerful tool for incorporating the results of a diagnostic test into clinical decision making, Ann Emerg Med, 33, 575, 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70346-X · DOI · Paper page
  12. Snyder, 1999, Accuracy of leukocyte count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, Ann Emerg Med, 33, 565, 10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70345-8 · doi:10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70345-8
  13. Hoffman, 2002, Prostate-specific antigen testing accuracy in community practice, BMC Fam Pract, 3, 19, 10.1186/1471-2296-3-19 · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-3-19
  14. McGee, 2002, Simplifying likelihood ratios, J Gen Intern Med, 17, 646, 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10750.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Halkin, 1998, Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective, QJM, 91, 247, 10.1093/qjmed/91.4.247 · DOI
  16. Pauker, 1980, The threshold approach to clinical decision making, N Engl J Med, 302, 1109, 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Dujardin, 1994, Likelihood ratios: a real improvement for clinical decision making?, Eur J Epidemiol, 10, 29, 10.1007/BF01717448 · DOI
  18. Sonis, 1999, How to use and interpret interval likelihood ratios, Fam Med, 31, 432
  19. Sharma, 1997, The likelihood ratio and ophthalmology: a review of how to critically appraise diagnostic studies, Can J Ophthalmol, 32, 475
  20. Davidson, 2002, The interpretation of diagnostic tests: a primer for physiotherapists, Aust J Physiother, 48, 227, 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60228-2 · DOI
  21. Tokuda, 2003, Pupillary evaluation for differential diagnosis of coma, Postgrad Med J, 79, 49, 10.1136/pmj.79.927.49 · doi:10.1136/pmj.79.927.49
  22. Hubbard, 1999, The predictive value of symptoms in diagnosing childhood tinea capitis, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 153, 1150, 10.1001/archpedi.153.11.1150 · doi:10.1001/archpedi.153.11.1150
  23. McCormick, 2003, Clinical effectiveness of the physical examination in diagnosis of posterior pelvic ring injuries, J Orthop Trauma, 17, 257, 10.1097/00005131-200304000-00003 · doi:10.1097/00005131-200304000-00003
  24. DeAlleaume, 2003, What findings distinguish acute bacterial sinusitis?, J Fam Pract, 52, 563
  25. Laslett, 2003, Diagnosing painful sacroiliac joints: a validity study of a McKenzie evaluation and sacroiliac provocation tests, Aust J Physiother, 49, 89, 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60125-2 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Bachmann, 2003, Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic review, BMJ, 326, 417, 10.1136/bmj.326.7386.417 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Bachur, 2001, Reliability of the urinalysis for predicting urinary tract infections in young febrile children, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 155, 60, 10.1001/archpedi.155.1.60 · DOI
  28. Kurien, 2000, Throat swab in the chronic tonsillitis: how reliable and valid is it?, Singapore Med J, 41, 324
  29. Dabekausen, 1994, Chlamydia trachomatis antibody testing is more accurate than hysterosalpingography in predicting tubal factor infertility, Fertil Steril, 61, 833, 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56692-8 · DOI
  30. Meigs, 1996, Interpreting results of prostate-specific antigen testing for early detection of prostate cancer, J Gen Intern Med, 11, 505, 10.1007/BF02599596 · DOI
  31. Fowler, 2003, Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia after median sternotomy: clinical utility of blood culture results in the identification of postoperative mediastinitis, Circulation, 108, 73, 10.1161/01.CIR.0000079105.65762.DB · DOI
  32. Moore, 2002, A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 20, 630, 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00862.x · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kerlikowske, 1996, Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography; risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation, JAMA, 276, 39, 10.1001/jama.1996.03540010041028 · DOI
  34. Eapen, 1997, Predictors of mortality in a medical intensive care unit, Natl Med J India, 10, 270
  35. Weiss, 2003, Development of a screen for ongoing intimate partner violence, Violence Vict, 18, 131, 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.131 · doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.131
  36. Choi, 1993, Use of surnames to identify individuals of Chinese ancestry, Am J Epidemiol, 138, 723, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116910 · DOI

Cited by

See all 828

Metadata

Authors
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
365
Issue
9469
Pages
1500-1505
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66422-7
OpenAlex
W2137195100
Cited by
828
References
2
FWCI
15.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66422-7
The paper
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2005). Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66422-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.