| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Retrospective cross‐sectional |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
103 paediatric patients (98 with chronic liver disease, 5 with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction). 55% Child A. Setting: tertiary referral centre in Brazil |
| Index tests |
Platelet count, platelet count‐to‐spleen diameter ratio |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Any oesophageal varices. Upper endoscopy |
| Flow and timing |
|
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
Paediatric |
| 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
Low |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test Platelet count |
| 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? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
Low |
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test Platelet count to spleen length ratio |
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
Unclear |
|
|
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
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? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Low |
|
