Ignatyeva 2012
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient sampling | Case control design with consecutive enrolment of participants, prospective data collection | ||
| Patient characteristics and setting |
|
||
| Index tests |
|
||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
|
||
| Flow and timing | Uninterpretable results reported: yes | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | Other findings: the interpretability of the Genotype® MTBDRsl assay was high, varying between 98.0% and 100% for the first reading and between 95.5% and 100% for the second reading (Table 3). | ||
| Methodological quality | |||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
| Was a case-control design avoided? | No | ||
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Yes | ||
| High | |||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
| If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified? | Yes | ||
| Low | |||
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
| Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
| Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Yes | ||
| Low | |||
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
| Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Yes | ||
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||