Standard area diagrams (SAD) have long been used as a tool to aid the estimation of plant disease severity, an essential variable in phytopathometry. Formal validation of SAD was not considered prior to the early 1990s, when considerable effort began to be invested developing SAD and assessing their value for improving accuracy of estimates of disease severity in many pathosystems. Peer-reviewed literature post-1990 was identified, selected, and cataloged in bibliographic software for further scrutiny and extraction of scientometric, pathosystem-related, and methodological-related data. In total, 105 studies (127 SAD) were found and authored by 327 researchers from 10 countries, mainly from Brazil. The six most prolific authors published at least seven studies. The scientific impact of a SAD article, based on annual citations after publication year, was affected by disease significance, the journal's impact factor, and methodological innovation. The reviewed SAD encompassed 48 crops and 103 unique diseases across a range of plant organs. Severity was quantified largely by image analysis software such as QUANT, APS-Assess, or a LI-COR leaf area meter. The most typical SAD comprised five to eight black-and-white drawings of leaf diagrams, with severity increasing nonlinearly. However, there was a trend toward using true-color photographs or stylized representations in a range of color combinations and more linear (equally spaced) increments of severity. A two-step SAD validation approach was used in 78 of 105 studies for which linear regression was the preferred method but a trend toward using Lin's correlation concordance analysis and hypothesis tests to detect the effect of SAD on accuracy was apparent. Reliability measures, when obtained, mainly considered variation among rather than within raters. The implications of the findings and knowledge gaps are discussed. A list of best practices for designing and implementing SAD and a website called SADBank for hosting SAD research data are proposed.