The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures
Open accessAbstract
This is the first of a series of five articles Development and introduction of new diagnostic techniques have greatly accelerated over the past decades. The evaluation of diagnostic techniques, however, is less advanced than that of treatments. Unlike with drugs, there are generally no formal requirements for adoption of diagnostic tests in routine care. In spite of important contributions, 1 2 the methodology of diagnostic research is poorly defined compared with study designs on treatment effectiveness, or on aetiology, so it is not surprising that methodological flaws are common in diagnostic studies.3–5 Furthermore, research funds rarely cover diagnostic research starting from symptoms or tests. Since quality of the diagnostic process largely determines quality of care, overcoming deficiencies in standards, methodology, and funding deserves high priority. This article summarises objectives of diagnostic testing and research, methodological challenges, and options for design of studies. #### Summary points Development of diagnostic techniques has greatly accelerated but the methodology of diagnostic research lags far behind that for evaluating treatments Objectives of diagnostic investigations include detection or exclusion of disease; contributing to management; assessment of prognosis; monitoring clinical course; and measurement of general health or fitness Methodological challenges include the “gold standard” problem; spectrum and selection biases; “soft” measures (subjective phenomena); observer variability and bias; complex relations; clinical impact; sample size; and rapid progress of knowledge Diagnostic investigations collect information to clarify patients' health status, using personal characteristics, symptoms, signs, history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and additional facilities. Objectives include the following.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Guidelines on the irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and practical management
Spiller, R., Aziz, Q., Creed, F., Emmanuel, A., Houghton, L., Hungin, P., Jones, R., Kumar, D., Rubin, G., Trudgill, N., et al. (2007) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2007.119446 · Cited by 818
Rimola, J., Ordás, I., Rodriguez, S., García-Bosch, O., Aceituno, M., Llach, J., Ayuso, C., Ricart, E., & Panés, J. (2011) · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · doi:10.1002/ibd.21551 · Cited by 503
Barkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., Mellor-Clark, J., Richards, D., Unsworth, G., & Evans, C. (2013) · Counselling and Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/14733145.2012.729069 · Cited by 413
Jenkins, M. A., Hayashi, S., O’Shea, A.-M., Burgart, L. J., Smyrk, T. C., Shimizu, D., Waring, P. M., Ruszkiewicz, A. R., Pollett, A. F., Redston, M., et al. (2007) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.04.044 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Knottnerus, J. A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-02-23
- Volume
- 324
- Issue
- 7335
- Pages
- 477-480
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1525595715
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.324.7335.477
- The paper
- Knottnerus, J. A. (2002). Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7335.477
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.