Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 6;2015(2):CD009944. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009944.pub2

Hizawa 2002.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling Retrospective study
Patient characteristics and setting Sample size: 227. Age: 17 ‐ 84 yrs. Gender: 102 men
Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer (any site) and undergoing surgery or endoscopic mucosal resection
T1a ‐ T1b cases enrolled
Index tests Index test: EUS; array: radial; frequency (MHz): 12 ‐ 20; criterion for T‐stage definition: EUS‐based 5‐layer structure of gastric wall
Target condition and reference standard(s) Target conditions: gastric carcinoma 1) T1a (165/220) vs T1b
Reference standard: pathology evaluation of surgical specimen (or endoscopic mucosal resection)
Reference and index test completely independent
Flow and timing No withdrawal reported
 7 uninterpretable cases reported
 All cases verified by reference standard test
Comparative  
Notes Country: Japan
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? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? No    
    High