Bhutta 1991.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Cross‐sectional study, consecutive sampling | ||
Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 63 Gestational age: term and preterm (> 34 weeks) Race/ethnicity: Pakistani Prior phototherapy: not reported Setting: newborn nursery of Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan |
||
Index tests |
TcB device: JM 101 Site of TcB measurement: forehead |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Target condition: neonatal jaundice TSB measurement method: photometry |
||
Flow and timing |
Time interval between tests: ≤ 2 hours Number of paired results: 100 |
||
Comparative | |||
Notes | |||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | Yes | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Yes | ||
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Unclear | ||
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | No | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Low risk |