Gagne 2003b.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling |
Primary objective: to determine whether high levels of VEGF could also be found in the serum of patients with endometriosis Participants: women who were scheduled to undergo laparoscopy or laparotomy at 1 of the 8 clinical institutions in the Montreal area Selection criteria: inclusion criteria: pre‐menopausal age, no past pregnancy, luteal phase of the menstrual cycle (based on the last period and further confirmed by histology), regular cycles (21‐35 days), no acute salpingitis, no hormonal treatment or IUD in previous 3 months. Study design: multicentre study of two‐gate design, prospective recruitment, random sample of patients (participation rate > 90%) |
||
Patient characteristics and setting |
Clinical presentation: infertility (11% controls, 28% cases); pain (19% controls, 34% cases); tubal ligation (60% controls, 26% cases); hysterectomy (18% controls, 35% cases); diagnostic laparoscopy (22% controls, 39% cases); history of acute infections (30% controls, 34% cases); smoking (63% controls, 53% cases) Age: sampling from a population with mean age of 37.3 ± 6.4 years Number of participants enrolled: 277 women Number of participants available for analysis: 277 women (all in luteal cycle phase) Setting: biotech firm ‐ MetrioGene BioSciences (a subsidiary of PROCREA BioSciences) Place of study: Montreal, Canada Period of study: July 1997 ‐ May 2001 Language: English |
||
Index tests |
Index test: VEGF Details of the index test procedure as stated: serum VEGF levels were measured using a commercially available ELISA kit (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN) according to the manufacturer's instruction; assay sensitivity <9.0 pg/ml; sample handling and laboratory procedure described in details Threshold for positive result: not provided Examiners: no information provided; unclear if were blinded to the result of reference standard Interobserver variability: Inter‐ and intra‐assay CV <10% |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) |
Target condition: endometriosis Prevalence of target condition in the sample: n = 131/277 (47%): stages I‐IV, numbers not specified; controls n = 146 Reference standard: laparoscopy/laparotomy N = 277 (100%) Description of positive case definition by reference standard test as reported: visual inspection; staging according to the ASRM classification Examiners: gynaecologists collaborating in the study were trained surgeons experienced with the management of endometriosis who were skilled in detecting and identifying all forms of endometriotic lesions |
||
Flow and timing |
Time interval between index test and reference standard: blood samples were collected before anaesthesia Withdrawals: none |
||
Comparative | |||
Key conclusions by the authors | Although VEGF seems to play a pivotal role locally in the implantation and development of endometriotic lesions, the disease is not associated with a significant modulation in the levels of circulating VEGF | ||
Conflict of interest | Not reported (the authors' affiliation is MetrioGene BioSciences, a biotech firm) | ||
Notes | For VEGF there was no difference between the groups ‐ no data available for meta‐analysis | ||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Yes | ||
Was a 'two‐gate' design avoided? | No | ||
High | High | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
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 | ||
Was a cycle phase considered in interpretation of the result of index test? | Yes | ||
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? | Yes | ||
Low | 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 |