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.