Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 15;2021(4):CD013346. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013346.pub2

Arrigoni 1988.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling The study population included 164 people with cirrhosis, referred to the Department of Turin from January 1981 to July 1986. The patients were prospectively followed as out patients for at least 12 months. 
Age range: 36‐79. Males 66%
Patient characteristics and setting  
Index tests AFP with commercial Kit (alpha fetoprotein Riabead, Dainabot Co. Ltd Tokyo Japan)
Target condition and reference standard(s) HCC histology; chronic liver disease: US, AFP, CT
Flow and timing No information on interval between index test and reference standard
Comparative  
Notes No information on conflicts of interest or funding
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? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (AFP)
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? Yes    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (US+AFP)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (US)
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? No    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
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? No    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   High risk