Table 3. Methodological qualities of comparative studies included (adapted from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2015 and Rangel et al, 2003).
| Quality measures | Smith et al, 2008 | Hunter et al, 2012 | Bugg et al, 2014 | Sohn et al, 2014 | Chand et al, 2015 | Seehaus et al, 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion criteria | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
| Exclusion criteria | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Can the number of participating centres be determined | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Can the number of radiologists who participated be determined | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Can the reader determine where the authors are on the learning curve for the reported procedure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Are diagnostic criteria clearly stated for clinical outcomes if required | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Is there any way that they have tried to standardise the radiological interpretation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Do authors address whether there is any missing data | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Were patients in each group treated along similar timelines | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Outcomes clearly defined? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |