Table 1.
Methodologic criteria | Information required for “yes” |
---|---|
1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? | Patients with suspected scaphoid fracture were consecutively and/or prospectively recruited |
2. Were selection criteria clearly described? | Clear definition of suspected scaphoid fracture was provided |
3. Is the reference standard likely to classify the target condition correctly? | Followup image, or plus clinical examination and/or combined image, was used as reference standard, and the limit of followup was at least 6 weeks; the imaging modalities could be plain radiographs, CT, MRI, or bone scintigraphy |
4. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? | All patients received a reference standard |
5. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? | All patients received same reference standard |
6. Was the reference standard independent of the index test? | Index test results did not form part of reference standard |
7. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? | Clear description of test techniques and definitions of positive and negative test results were mentioned |
8. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? | |
9. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Index test was interpreted without knowledge of reference standard results and vice versa, or test was clearly interpreted before results of other test were available |
10. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? | |
11. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? | Data on patient age, gender, and presenting symptoms and physical signs were available |
12. Were uninterruptible/intermediate test results reported? | Results were available for all patients who entered the study |
13. Were withdrawals from the study explained? | Reasons why results were not available for all patients who entered the trial were reported or results were available for all patients |
The QUADAS criteria were taken from Table 2 in: Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/3/25.