Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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 more accurate or best-estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method. However, the quality of such best-estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when they are reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here, we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such best-estimate assessment studies. METHODS: The development of the reporting guidelines followed a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and 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 two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published studies report the standards. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10 to 63% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected studies. RESULTS: The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Longitudinal design (four standards); the Appropriate data (four standards); the Evaluation - experts, materials, and procedures (ten standards); and the Validity group (two standards). CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.