| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Design: Retrospective
Setting: UK
Accrual dates: July 2002 to June 2003
No participants: 130
No assessed: 130 inc. 1 deferred
Inclusion criteria: Suspicious pelvic masses
Included previous histological diagnosis: yes |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Suspicious pelvbic masses. Tertiary centre, UK. |
| Index tests |
FS. No details given. |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Malignant or borderline on PS. |
| Flow and timing |
FS before PS. |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
1 deferred was benign. |
| 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Yes |
|
|
| Was the sample representative of patients in practice (90% stage I/II with RMI>200)? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
Low |
| 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 |
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 |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Low |
| 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 |
|
