Methods for developing diagnostic criteria for conditions without objective tests, biomarkers, or reference standards: a scoping review

When lab tests or scans are not available to confirm a diagnosis, doctors may use diagnostic criteria to help them decide what condition a patient may have. There is currently no clear way to create these criteria, which can lead to inconsistency and confusion. We looked at why this matters-because diagnostic criteria developed without transparency or methodological rigor may lead to incorrect diagnosis, patient harm or inequitable access to care-and explored how researchers develop diagnostic criteria when an objective test does not exist. Most studies relied on expert meetings, but many did not explain how they chose experts, gathered evidence or involved diverse perspectives such as patient voices. Our research shows that current practices often are not well explained and may be biased or incomplete. By understanding what's missing and what may work, we hope this study encourages better, more transparent methods so that future diagnostic criteria are clearer, fairer, and more trustworthy for both patients and healthcare providers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Published
2025-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112052
Primary Topic
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Methods for developing diagnostic criteria for conditions without objective tests, biomarkers, or reference standards: a scoping review

Tracy Merlin, Sam White, Aoife O’Mahony, Natasha Reid et al.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
article

Methods for developing diagnostic criteria for conditions without objective tests, biomarkers, or reference standards: a scoping review

Tracy Merlin, Sam White, Aoife O’Mahony, Natasha Reid, Sharon Sanders, Grace Holland, Danielle Pollock, Timothy Hugh Barker, Zachary Munn, Thanya Pathirana, Rebecca Theiss
article en

Abstract

When lab tests or scans are not available to confirm a diagnosis, doctors may use diagnostic criteria to help them decide what condition a patient may have. There is currently no clear way to create these criteria, which can lead to inconsistency and confusion. We looked at why this matters-because diagnostic criteria developed without transparency or methodological rigor may lead to incorrect diagnosis, patient harm or inequitable access to care-and explored how researchers develop diagnostic criteria when an objective test does not exist. Most studies relied on expert meetings, but many did not explain how they chose experts, gathered evidence or involved diverse perspectives such as patient voices. Our research shows that current practices often are not well explained and may be biased or incomplete. By understanding what's missing and what may work, we hope this study encourages better, more transparent methods so that future diagnostic criteria are clearer, fairer, and more trustworthy for both patients and healthcare providers.

Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 190
Griffith University (AU), Bond University (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), University of South Australia (AU), University College Cork (IE), The University of Adelaide (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.