| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Type of study: retrospective study.
Consecutive or random sample: neither. |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 38.
Females: 12 (31.6%).
Age: 60 years.
Presentation:
Patients with IPMN who had undergone a pancreatic resection.
Setting: secondary care, Japan. |
| Index tests |
Index test: EUS.
Further details:
Technical specifications: not stated.
Performed by: not stated.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: presence of mural nodule or papillary projection. |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Target condition: cancerous (high‐grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low‐ or intermediate‐grade dysplasia).
Reference standard: surgical excision.
Further details:
Technical specifications: not applicable.
Performed by: clinicians.
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 |
Out of 38 participants included in the study, only 28 underwent EUS. We obtained diagnostic accuracy information from the discussion. The tables provide information on the number of participants who underwent EUS and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in identifying the presence of the lesion. |
| 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? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
High |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous (high grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low or intermediate grade dysplasia) ‐ EUS |
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
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? |
Unclear |
|
|
| |
|
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? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
|
