Warshaw 1986.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Sample size: 40 Females: Not stated Age: Not stated |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Patients with potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (after CT scan) Setting: Surgical centre in the USA |
||
Index tests | Diagnostic laparoscopy Criteria for positive diagnosis: Biopsies of lesions suspicious of metastases |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target condition: Unresectability Reference standard: Laparotomy for patients with no evidence of metastases on laparoscopy; biopsy with histolopathological confirmation of spread for patients with suspected metastases Criteria for positive diagnosis: Not stated |
||
Flow and timing | Number of indeterminates for whom the results of reference standard were available: Not stated Number of patients who were excluded from the analysis: Not stated |
||
Comparative | |||
Notes | |||
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 | ||
Unclear | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Unclear | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | No | ||
Unclear | Low | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | No | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | No | ||
High |
CT: computed tomography EUS: endoscopic ultrasound