Table 1. Risk of bias assesment, Quadas-2 criteria.

	Methods criteria
	Patient Selection				Index test(s)				Reference standard
Study	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Mate 2003	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	no	No	No	no	No	No	No	No
2. Duran 2009	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	no	No	No	no	No	No	No	No
3. Goldman 2000	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	No	No	no	No	No	No	No
4. Oliveira 2000	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	yes	No	No	no	No	No	No	No
5. Ahmadzadeh 2007	yes	Yes	yes	No	yes	No	No	no	No	No	No	No
6. Berrocal 2005	Yes	Yes	yes	Yes	no	no	No	no	No	No	No	No
7. Bosio 2002	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	no	No	No	no	No	No	yes	yes
8. Kaefer 1997	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	yes	No	No	no	No	No	yes	yes
9. Nakamura 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	yes	yes
10. Kihara 2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
11. De Kort 2003	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
12. Chaumoitre 2004	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	yes	No	No	No	No	No	yes	yes
13. Cohen 1994	Yes	unclear	yes	yes	yes	No	No	no	No	No	yes	yes
14. Payabvash 2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	No	No	No	Yes	unclear	Yes	Yes
15. De Kort 2004	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	No	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes

Population

1.a consecutive or random sample of patients were enrolledyesnounclear.

2.enrolment preceded verification of the disease status (case-control design was avoided) yesnounclear.

3.inappropriate exclusions were avoided yesnounclear.

4.all included patients were included in the data analysis yesnounclear.

Index test(s)

5.the index test was done in all patients yesnounclear.

6.the index test was interpreted without knowledge of the disease statusyesnounclear.

7.a threshold was used to interpret the index test yesnounclear.

8.the threshold was pre-specified yesnounclear.

Reference standard

9.the disease status was verified in all patients yesnounclear.

10.the disease status was verified without knowledge of the index test result yesnounclear.

11.the same reference standard was used in all patientsyesnounclear.

12.the reference standard allowed correct classification of the disease statusyesnounclear.