Veerle C. Eijsbroek , Katarina Kjell , H. Andrew Schwartz , Jan R. Boehnke , Eiko I. Fried , Daniel N. Klein , Peik Gustafsson , Isabelle Augenstein , Patrick M.M. Bossuyt , Oscar N.E. Kjell
{"title":"主要指南:专家小组报告标准,最佳估计诊断和纵向专家所有数据(LEAD)方法","authors":"Veerle C. Eijsbroek , Katarina Kjell , H. Andrew Schwartz , Jan R. Boehnke , Eiko I. Fried , Daniel N. Klein , Peik Gustafsson , Isabelle Augenstein , Patrick M.M. Bossuyt , Oscar N.E. Kjell","doi":"10.1016/j.comppsych.2025.152603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a <em>best-estimate assessment</em>. This assessment method is called the <em>Expert Panel</em> method in medicine, and the <em>Best-Estimate Diagnosis</em> or <em>Longitudinal Expert All Data</em> (LEAD) method in psychiatry and psychology. However, due to poor reporting of the assessment methods, the quality of pro-claimed best-estimate assessments is typically difficult to evaluate, and when the method is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. To tackle this gap, we have developed a reporting guideline following a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having researchers test it and ii) applying it to previously published studies. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10–63 % (Mean 33 %) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected published studies. The result is the LEADING guideline comprising 20 reporting standards in four groups: the <em>Longitudinal design</em>, the <em>Appropriate data</em>, the <em>Evaluation – experts, materials and procedures</em>, and the <em>Validity</em> group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will assist researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10554,"journal":{"name":"Comprehensive psychiatry","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 152603"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods\",\"authors\":\"Veerle C. Eijsbroek , Katarina Kjell , H. Andrew Schwartz , Jan R. Boehnke , Eiko I. Fried , Daniel N. Klein , Peik Gustafsson , Isabelle Augenstein , Patrick M.M. Bossuyt , Oscar N.E. Kjell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comppsych.2025.152603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a <em>best-estimate assessment</em>. This assessment method is called the <em>Expert Panel</em> method in medicine, and the <em>Best-Estimate Diagnosis</em> or <em>Longitudinal Expert All Data</em> (LEAD) method in psychiatry and psychology. However, due to poor reporting of the assessment methods, the quality of pro-claimed best-estimate assessments is typically difficult to evaluate, and when the method is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. To tackle this gap, we have developed a reporting guideline following a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having researchers test it and ii) applying it to previously published studies. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10–63 % (Mean 33 %) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected published studies. The result is the LEADING guideline comprising 20 reporting standards in four groups: the <em>Longitudinal design</em>, the <em>Appropriate data</em>, the <em>Evaluation – experts, materials and procedures</em>, and the <em>Validity</em> group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will assist researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"141 \",\"pages\":\"Article 152603\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X25000318\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comprehensive psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X25000318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods
Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a best-estimate assessment. This assessment method is called the Expert Panel method in medicine, and the Best-Estimate Diagnosis or Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method in psychiatry and psychology. However, due to poor reporting of the assessment methods, the quality of pro-claimed best-estimate assessments is typically difficult to evaluate, and when the method is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. To tackle this gap, we have developed a reporting guideline following a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having researchers test it and ii) applying it to previously published studies. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10–63 % (Mean 33 %) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected published studies. The result is the LEADING guideline comprising 20 reporting standards in four groups: the Longitudinal design, the Appropriate data, the Evaluation – experts, materials and procedures, and the Validity group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will assist researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.
期刊介绍:
"Comprehensive Psychiatry" is an open access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the field of psychiatry and mental health. Its primary mission is to share the latest advancements in knowledge to enhance patient care and deepen the understanding of mental illnesses. The journal is supported by a diverse team of international editors and peer reviewers, ensuring the publication of high-quality research with a strong focus on clinical relevance and the implications for psychopathology.
"Comprehensive Psychiatry" encourages authors to present their research in an accessible manner, facilitating engagement with clinicians, policymakers, and the broader public. By embracing an open access policy, the journal aims to maximize the global impact of its content, making it readily available to a wide audience and fostering scientific collaboration and public awareness beyond the traditional academic community. This approach is designed to promote a more inclusive and informed dialogue on mental health, contributing to the overall progress in the field.