BackgroundThere is a pressing need to improve the accuracy of rare disease clinical study endpoints. Neutral theory, first described here, can be used to assess the accuracy of endpoints and improve their selection in rare disease clinical studies, reducing the risk of patient misclassification.MethodsNeutral theory was used to assess the accuracy of rare disease clinical study endpoints and the resulting probability of false positive and false negative classifications at different disease prevalence rates. Search strings were extracted from the Orphanet Register of Rare Diseases using a proprietary algorithm to conduct a systematic review of studies published until January 2021. Overall, 11 rare diseases with one disease-specific disease severity scale (133 studies) and 12 rare diseases with more than one disease-specific disease severity scale (483 studies) were included. All indicators from clinical studies were extracted, and Neutral theory was used to calculate their match to disease-specific disease severity scales, which were used as surrogates for the disease phenotype. For those with more than one disease-severity scale, endpoints were compared with the first disease-specific disease severity scale and a composite of all later scales. A Neutrality score of > 1.50 was considered acceptable.ResultsAround half the clinical studies for half the rare diseases with one disease-specific disease severity score (palmoplantar psoriasis, achalasia, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis and Fournier’s gangrene) met the threshold for an acceptable match to the disease phenotype, one rare disease (Guillain-Barré syndrome) had one study with an acceptable match, and four diseases (Behcet’s syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome) had no studies. Clinical study endpoints in almost half the rare diseases with more than one disease-specific DSS (acromegaly, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, Fabry disease and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis) were a better match to the composite, while endpoints in the remaining rare diseases (Charcot Marie Tooth disease, Gaucher disease Type I, Huntington’s disease, Sjogren’s syndrome and Tourette syndrome) were a worse match. Misclassifications varied with increasing disease prevalence.ConclusionsNeutral theory confirmed that disease-severity measurement needs improvement in rare disease clinical studies, especially for some diseases, and suggested that the potential for accuracy increases as the body of knowledge on a disease increases. Using Neutral theory to benchmark disease-severity measurement in rare disease clinical studies may reduce the risk of misclassification, ensuring that recruitment and treatment effect assessment optimise medicine adoption and benefit patients.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01947-z.