| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Type of study: retrospective study.
Consecutive or random sample: neither. |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
Sample size: 59.
Females: 3 (5.1%).
Age: 66 years.
Presentation:
Patients with IPMN with mural nodules who had undergone PET/CT and surgical resection.
Setting: secondary care, Japan. |
| Index tests |
Index test: PET.
Further details:
Technical specifications: Biograph LSO DUO PET/CT scanner, Siemens.
Performed by: radiologist.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: SUVmax > 2.3. |
| 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: 43 (72.9%). |
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Only 16 of 43 people with IPMN were included in the analysis. Sensitivity was also available for SUVmax 2.0 and 2.5. |
| 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) ‐ PET (SUV max 2‐2.5) |
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
No |
|
|
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
High |
High |
| 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
|
