Study characteristics |
Patient sampling |
Type of study: unclear whether prospective or retrospective study.
Consecutive or random sample: unclear. |
Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 24.
Females: not stated.
Age: not stated.
Presentation:
Patients with pancreatic masses.
Setting: secondary care, Japan. |
Index tests |
Index test: PET.
Further details:
Technical specifications: HEADTOME‐IV (Shimadzu Corporation).
Performed by: not stated.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: not stated. |
Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Target condition: cancerous versus benign.
Reference standard: surgical excision, open laparotomy biopsy or clinical follow‐up for at least 3 years.
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 |
|
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 |
High |
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Cancerous versus benign ‐ PET |
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
Unclear |
|
|
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
Unclear |
|
|
|
|
Unclear |
High |
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? |
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? |
No |
|
|
Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Unclear |
|
|
|
|
High |
|