Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment using Phase 3 of the QUADAS-2 tool

From: A systematic review of test accuracy studies evaluating molecular micro-satellite instability testing for the detection of individuals with lynch syndrome

Domain

Item

Population-based, single-gate

High-risk,single-gate

Other

Barnetson 2006 [16]

Southey 2005 [23]

Poynter 2008a [21]

Caldes 2004 [17]

Mueller 2009 [19]

Overbeek 2007 [20]

Poynter 2008 a [21]

Shia 2005 [22]

Hendriks 2003 [18]

Patient selection

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Y

Y

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Was a case-control design avoided?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Nb

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Y

Y

U

Y

U

U

U

U

Y

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

L

L

U

U

U

U

U

U

Uc

Is there concern that the included patients do not match the review question?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

Index test

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Is there concern that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

Reference standard

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Y

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

L

Is there concern that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

Flow and timing

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Y

N

N

N

U

U

N

N

U

Were all patients included in the analysis?

N

N

N

N

Y

U

N

U

N

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

  1. Notes: aPoynter was assessed twice because data were reported for both a population-based sample and a high-risk sample; bA case-control design was only avoided because there was no control group (half a case control study); cAn unbiased estimate of sensitivity (but not specificity) can be ascertained from this study design, however an unclear rating is given because it is not clear if a consecutive or random sample was recruited
  2. Key: L = low, N = no, U = unclear, Y = yes