Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The LEADING guideline : Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods

Eijsbroek, Veerle C. LU ; Kjell, Katarina LU ; Schwartz, H. Andrew LU ; Boehnke, Jan R. ; Fried, Eiko I. ; Klein, Daniel N. ; Gustafsson, Peik LU orcid ; Augenstein, Isabelle ; Bossuyt, Patrick M.M. and Kjell, Oscar N.E. LU orcid (2025) In Comprehensive Psychiatry 141.
Abstract

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... (More)

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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Assessment, Best-estimate diagnosis, Expert panel, Longitudinal Expert All Data, Psychiatry, Reporting, Standard
in
Comprehensive Psychiatry
volume
141
article number
152603
publisher
W.B. Saunders
external identifiers
  • pmid:40479924
  • scopus:105007102667
ISSN
0010-440X
DOI
10.1016/j.comppsych.2025.152603
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
e43ce95f-1c06-4c00-852d-fde6229d4b57
date added to LUP
2025-07-15 11:14:36
date last changed
2025-07-15 11:15:53
@article{e43ce95f-1c06-4c00-852d-fde6229d4b57,
  abstract     = {{<p>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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Eijsbroek, Veerle C. and Kjell, Katarina and Schwartz, H. Andrew and Boehnke, Jan R. and Fried, Eiko I. and Klein, Daniel N. and Gustafsson, Peik and Augenstein, Isabelle and Bossuyt, Patrick M.M. and Kjell, Oscar N.E.}},
  issn         = {{0010-440X}},
  keywords     = {{Assessment; Best-estimate diagnosis; Expert panel; Longitudinal Expert All Data; Psychiatry; Reporting; Standard}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{W.B. Saunders}},
  series       = {{Comprehensive Psychiatry}},
  title        = {{The LEADING guideline : Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2025.152603}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.comppsych.2025.152603}},
  volume       = {{141}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}