| Study characteristics |
| Patient sampling |
Prospective cross‐sectional study |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
1016 consecutive adult patients. Child A: 100%. Setting: tertiary referral centres in USA |
| Index tests |
Platelet count |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Presence of any and high‐risk oesophageal varices. Upper endoscopy |
| Flow and timing |
|
| Comparative |
|
| Notes |
This report included all randomised patients at all clinical centres participating in the HALT‐C trial |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
Yes |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
Yes |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
No |
|
|
| |
|
High |
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 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? |
Yes |
|
|
| |
|
Unclear |
|
