Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals

David E. Ost; David J. Feller-Kopman; Anne V. Gonzalez; Horiana B. Grosu; Felix Herth; Peter Mazzone; John E.S. Park; José M. Porcel; Samira Shojaee; Ioana Tsiligianni; Anil Vachani; Jonathan Bernstein; Richard Branson; Patrick A. Flume; Cezmi A. Akdis; Martin Kolb; Esther Barreiro Portela; Alan Smyth

doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920

Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals

David E. Ost^*, David J. Feller-Kopman, Anne V. Gonzalez, Horiana B. Grosu, Felix Herth, Peter Mazzone, John E.S. Park, José M. Porcel, Samira Shojaee, Ioana Tsiligianni, Anil Vachani, Jonathan Bernstein, Richard Branson, Patrick A. Flume, Cezmi A. Akdis, Martin Kolb, Esther Barreiro Portela, Alan Smyth

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

17 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Diagnostic testing is fundamental to medicine. However, studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine vary significantly in terms of their methodology, definitions, and reporting of results. This has led to often conflicting or ambiguous results. To address this issue, a group of 20 respiratory journal editors worked to develop reporting standards for studies of diagnostic testing based on a rigorous methodology to guide authors, peer reviewers, and researchers when conducting studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine. Four key areas are covered, including defining the reference standard of truth, measures of dichotomous test performance when used for dichotomous outcomes, measures of multichotomous test performance for dichotomous outcomes, and what constitutes a useful definition of diagnostic yield. The importance of using contingency tables for reporting results is addressed with examples from the literature. A practical checklist is provided as well for reporting studies of diagnostic testing.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	207-222
Number of pages	16
Journal	Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology
Volume	30
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920
Publication status	Published - 10 Jul 2023
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Keywords

bias
diagnostic techniques and procedures
false positive
likelihood ratio
predictive value
research design
sensitivity
specificity
true positive

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Access to Document

10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920Licence: Unspecified

Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals
Copyright 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Accepted author manuscript, 491 KBLicence: Unspecified

Cite this

Ost, D. E., Feller-Kopman, D. J., Gonzalez, A. V., Grosu, H. B., Herth, F., Mazzone, P., Park, J. E. S., Porcel, J. M., Shojaee, S., Tsiligianni, I., Vachani, A., Bernstein, J., Branson, R., Flume, P. A., Akdis, C. A., Kolb, M., Portela, E. B., & Smyth, A. (2023). Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals. Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology, 30(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920

@article{34c2a8a6e38746769e1a8dbf3cefc515,

title = "Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals",

abstract = "Diagnostic testing is fundamental to medicine. However, studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine vary significantly in terms of their methodology, definitions, and reporting of results. This has led to often conflicting or ambiguous results. To address this issue, a group of 20 respiratory journal editors worked to develop reporting standards for studies of diagnostic testing based on a rigorous methodology to guide authors, peer reviewers, and researchers when conducting studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine. Four key areas are covered, including defining the reference standard of truth, measures of dichotomous test performance when used for dichotomous outcomes, measures of multichotomous test performance for dichotomous outcomes, and what constitutes a useful definition of diagnostic yield. The importance of using contingency tables for reporting results is addressed with examples from the literature. A practical checklist is provided as well for reporting studies of diagnostic testing.",

keywords = "bias, diagnostic techniques and procedures, false positive, likelihood ratio, predictive value, research design, sensitivity, specificity, true positive",

author = "Ost, \{David E.\} and Feller-Kopman, \{David J.\} and Gonzalez, \{Anne V.\} and Grosu, \{Horiana B.\} and Felix Herth and Peter Mazzone and Park, \{John E.S.\} and Porcel, \{Jos{\'e} M.\} and Samira Shojaee and Ioana Tsiligianni and Anil Vachani and Jonathan Bernstein and Richard Branson and Flume, \{Patrick A.\} and Akdis, \{Cezmi A.\} and Martin Kolb and Portela, \{Esther Barreiro\} and Alan Smyth",

year = "2023",

month = jul,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "207--222",

journal = "Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology",

issn = "1944-6586",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "3",

}

Ost, DE, Feller-Kopman, DJ, Gonzalez, AV, Grosu, HB, Herth, F, Mazzone, P, Park, JES, Porcel, JM, Shojaee, S, Tsiligianni, I, Vachani, A, Bernstein, J, Branson, R, Flume, PA, Akdis, CA, Kolb, M, Portela, EB & Smyth, A 2023, 'Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals', Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals

AU - Ost, David E.

AU - Feller-Kopman, David J.

AU - Gonzalez, Anne V.

AU - Grosu, Horiana B.

AU - Herth, Felix

AU - Mazzone, Peter

AU - Park, John E.S.

AU - Porcel, José M.

AU - Shojaee, Samira

AU - Tsiligianni, Ioana

AU - Vachani, Anil

AU - Bernstein, Jonathan

AU - Branson, Richard

AU - Flume, Patrick A.

AU - Akdis, Cezmi A.

AU - Kolb, Martin

AU - Portela, Esther Barreiro

AU - Smyth, Alan

PY - 2023/7/10

Y1 - 2023/7/10

N2 - Diagnostic testing is fundamental to medicine. However, studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine vary significantly in terms of their methodology, definitions, and reporting of results. This has led to often conflicting or ambiguous results. To address this issue, a group of 20 respiratory journal editors worked to develop reporting standards for studies of diagnostic testing based on a rigorous methodology to guide authors, peer reviewers, and researchers when conducting studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine. Four key areas are covered, including defining the reference standard of truth, measures of dichotomous test performance when used for dichotomous outcomes, measures of multichotomous test performance for dichotomous outcomes, and what constitutes a useful definition of diagnostic yield. The importance of using contingency tables for reporting results is addressed with examples from the literature. A practical checklist is provided as well for reporting studies of diagnostic testing.

AB - Diagnostic testing is fundamental to medicine. However, studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine vary significantly in terms of their methodology, definitions, and reporting of results. This has led to often conflicting or ambiguous results. To address this issue, a group of 20 respiratory journal editors worked to develop reporting standards for studies of diagnostic testing based on a rigorous methodology to guide authors, peer reviewers, and researchers when conducting studies of diagnostic testing in respiratory medicine. Four key areas are covered, including defining the reference standard of truth, measures of dichotomous test performance when used for dichotomous outcomes, measures of multichotomous test performance for dichotomous outcomes, and what constitutes a useful definition of diagnostic yield. The importance of using contingency tables for reporting results is addressed with examples from the literature. A practical checklist is provided as well for reporting studies of diagnostic testing.

KW - bias

KW - diagnostic techniques and procedures

KW - false positive

KW - likelihood ratio

KW - predictive value

KW - research design

KW - sensitivity

KW - specificity

KW - true positive

U2 - 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920

DO - 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000920

M3 - Article

C2 - 37070780

AN - SCOPUS:85164210093

SN - 1944-6586

VL - 30

SP - 207

EP - 222

JO - Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

JF - Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

IS - 3

ER -

Reporting standards for diagnostic testing. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this