Table 2.
Study | Risk of Bias | Applicability | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient Selection | Index Test | Reference Standard | Flow and Timing | Patient Selection | Index Test | Reference Standard | |
Rasmussen et al. [2] | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
Joseph et al. [15] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
Khatib et al. [16] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
Heriot et al. [17] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
Gow et al. [18] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Palraj [19] | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Buitron de la Vega et al. [20] | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Tubiana et al. [21] | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
For this review, “Patient Selection” refers to the process by which episodes of sab were identified and selected for inclusion in the reported diagnostic performance statistics; “Index Test” refers to the criteria used to identify patients at very low risk of endocarditis; the “Reference Standard” was the means by which patients received an ultimate diagnosis of endocarditis; and “Flow and Timing” refers to the temporal relationship between the onset of bacteremia, the application of the criteria, and the reference standard.
✓ low risk of bias; ✗ high risk of bias.