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

Caviglia 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling From a cohort of patients HBsAg positive with cirrhosis33 patients with HCC and 30 patients with cirrhosis HbSaG pos were enrolled between December 2012 and June 2015 exclusion criteria: anti HCV positivity, anti HIV positivity, alcohol intake > 40 g/day, concomitant other liver disease; unavailability of at least two serum samples.
Age range: 50‐64. Males 76%
Patient characteristics and setting  
Index tests Serum AFP measurement by CLEIA system. No predefined cut‐off value
Target condition and reference standard(s) CT for HCC; US for cirrhosis
Flow and timing No information on interval between index test and reference standard
Comparative  
Notes Authors declared no conflicts of interest; funded by a grant from the local university
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? No    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? No    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     High
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? No    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   High 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