| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Type of study: retrospective study.
Consecutive or random sample: neither. |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 123.
Females: not stated.
Age: not stated.
Presentation:
Patients with surgically proven and histopathologically confirmed IPMN and who had undergone MRI examinations with diffusion‐weighted imaging before surgery.
Setting: secondary care, Korea. |
| Index tests |
Index test: MRI.
Further details:
Technical specifications: Verio or Trio (Siemens Medical Solutions), Signa HDTx (GE Medical Systems), Achieva (Philips Healthcare).
Performed by: radiologist.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: signal intensity of normal pancreatic parenchyma at the mural nodule, septum, cystic wall, ductal wall, and solid lesion of the IPMNs. |
| 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: 30 (24.4%). |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
25 participants were excluded due to lack of diffusion‐weighed MRI or subquality MRI. The sensitivities and specificities reported by other radiologists were lower. |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
No |
|
|
| 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) ‐ MRI |
| 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? |
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? |
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 |
|
