Ahn 2009.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Retrospective study | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 71. Age: unreported. Gender: unreported Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer (any site) and undergoing surgery Spectrum: T1 ‐ T3 and N0/N+ cases enrolled |
||
Index tests | Index test: EUS; array: radial; frequency (MHz): 5 ‐ 12; criterion for T‐stage definition: EUS‐based 5‐layer structure of gastric wall; criterion for N‐stage definition: lymph node morphology and size (> 5 mm) | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target conditions: gastric carcinoma 1) T1 (67/71) vs T2, 2) N0 (65/71) vs N+ Reference standard: pathology evaluation of surgical specimen Reference and index test completely independent |
||
Flow and timing | No uninterpretable findings reported | ||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Country: Korea Relevant clinical information: same clinical data available for test results interpretation as those available when test used in practice |
||
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 | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
Low | 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 | ||
Low | 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? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Unclear |