Table 2.

Quality assessment of included studies

	Description/Article	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Was the spectrum of patient’s representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
2	Were selection criteria clearly described?	+	+	+	?	?	+	+	+
3	Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	+
4	Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests?	?	?	+	+	?	+	+	?
5	Did the whole sample of a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?
6	Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test results?	+	+	+	?	?	+	+	?
7	Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e., the index text did not form part of the reference standard)?	+	+	+	+	?	?	+	+
8	Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
9	Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication?	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	+
10	Were the index tests results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−
11	Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?	−	−	−	−	?	−	−	−
12	Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
13	Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported?	+	+	−	−	−	−	−	+
14	Were withdrawals from the study explained?	−	+	?	−	−	−	−	+

Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. +: Yes (high quality), −: No (low quality), ?: Unclear

1: Nishiumi et al. (26), 2: Wang et al. (29), 3: Minerzami et al. (30), 4: Williams et al. (31), 5: Vahabi et al. (27), 6: Lin et al. (15), 7: Tian et al. (32), 8: Uchiyama et al. (28)