| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Design: Retrospective
Setting: Turkey
Accrual dates: July 2006 ‐ January 2013
No participants: 282
No assessed: 282
Inclusion criteria: Re‐analysis of charts of 282 women with an ovarian neoplasm (42.8% of all gynaecologic FSs) with intraoperative FS reports. Paraffin section diagnoses with non‐tumoural ovarian lesions (massive ovarian edema, hemorrhagic necrosis, benign cysts, infections) were excluded.
Included previous histological diagnosis: unclear |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Excluded non‐tumoral ovarian masses |
| Index tests |
“All fresh gross specimen were examined by a resident and a pathologist or particularly gynecopathologist, in terms of localization, size, colour, content, heterogeneity, infiltration pattern of the tumour and condition of the ovarian capsule. One to four sections depending on the size and heterogeneity of the tumour were sampled in a cryostat and sections were stained by hematoxylin‐eosin. Slides were evaluated and reported to the surgeon by the pathologist. Final PS diagnosis reported by an experienced gynecopathologist was accepted as accurate diagnose.” |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Malignancy; paraffin section |
| Flow and timing |
FS before PS. |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Re‐analysis of charts of 282 women with an ovarian neoplasm (42.8% of all gynaecologic FSs) with intraoperative FS reports diagnosed between July 2006 and January 2013. Paraffin section diagnoses with non‐tumoural ovarian lesions (massive ovarian edema, hemorrhagic necrosis, benign cysts, infections) were excluded. |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Was the sample representative of patients in practice (90% stage I/II with RMI>200)? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Unclear |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests |
| Were the index tests interpreted without knowledge of the reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were the index tests Interpreted by consultant or specialist gyn‐onc pathologist? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Unclear |
| 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? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Unclear |
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing |
| Did all patients receive a reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were un‐interpretable/intermediate test results reported? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were withdrawals from the study explained? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
|
