Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 13;1:62. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-62

Table 1.

Risk-of-bias assessment of studies published after March 2007

Study Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5a Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Risk of bias
Maubec and colleagues [28]
Yes
Unclear
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Unclear
Yes
Yes
Unclear
Low
Strobel and colleagues [36]
No
Unclear
Yes
Yes
No
No
Unclear
Unclear
Yes
Unclear
High
Singh and colleagues [23]
Yes
Unclear
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Unclear
Yes
Unclear
High
Bastiaannet and colleagues [35]
Yes
Unclear
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Unclear
Unclear
Yes
Unclear
Low
Veit-Haibach and colleagues [37]
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unclear
Yes
No
Yes
Unclear
High
Aukema and colleagues [34] Unclear Unclear Yes Yes No Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Unclear High

Item 1, reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition appropriately; item 2, time period between reference standard and index test appropriate; item 3, interdependence of test appropriate; item 4, partial verification avoided; item 5, differential verification bias; item 6, incorporation bias; item 7, reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test; item 8, intention-to-diagnose analysis performed; item 9, Free from selective reporting; item 10, no other aspects. Yes, low risk of bias; no, high risk of bias; unclear, information for assessment of the item is missing.

aPositron emission tomography (PET) studies had a differential verification bias because PET nonresponders were only followed up, instead of undergoing a biopsy. Item 5 was not considered in the risk-of-bias assessment.