Table A2: Quality of studies investigating the accuracy of PET for the detection of regional functional recovery (Part I).
| QUADAS Tool | Author, Year | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuhl 2006 | Slart 2006 a | Slart 2006 b | Barring-ton 2004 | Schmidt 2004 | Nowak 2003 | Lund 2002 | Tani 2001 | Wiggers 2000 | Fath-Ordoubad i 1999 | Schoder 1999 | Zhang 1999 | Pagano 1998 | |
| 1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of patients who will receive test?* | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| 2. Were selection criteria clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| 3. Is reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Is time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure the target condition did not change between tests? | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| 5. Did whole sample or random selection of sample receive verification using reference standard of diagnosis? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of index test result? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Was reference standard independent of index test? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was execution of index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of test? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Was execution of reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Were index test results interpreted without knowledge of results of reference standard? | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Unclear |
| 11. Were reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of results of index standard? | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| 12. Were same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when test is used in practice? | No | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| 13. Were uninterpretable / intermediate test results reported? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | n/a | No | Yes |
| 14. Were withdrawals from the study explained? | Yes | n/a | n/a | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | n/a | n/a | Yes |
ECHO, echocardiography; LVA, left ventricular angiography; MUGA, multi-gated acquisition scan (radionuclide ventriculography)
Patient characteristics (mean age, percentage male, mean LVEF, percentage with diabetes, percentage with hypertension, and percentage with previous MI) from each study population were compared with the typical patient population undergoing viability testing in Ontario. This typical patient population was defined by the patient population enrolled in the Ontario Cardiac FDG PET Registry (CADRE) study. A study population was considered representative if at least five of the six characteristics were similar (within ± 10) to the reference population. Overall, most study populations had a higher percentage of males, lower percentage of people with diabetes, hypertension, and previous MI than the Ontario reference population.