El Mahdy 2019.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Three groups:
Group I (control): 60 apparently healthy individuals Group II (cirrhosis): 75 patients with liver cirrhosis Group III (HCC): 60 patients with HCC Age range and % of males not reported |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | |||
Index tests | The analysis of serum alpha fetoprotein (AFP) (ng/mL) was done by IMMULITE 1000 system supplied by Siemens kit (SIEMENS Medical Solutions Diagnostics, USA). No pre‐definition of cut‐off value |
||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | All HCC patients were diagnosed by characteristic vascular enhancement pattern detected by multislice triphasic spiral CT scan or MRI according to established diagnostic criteria. Cirrhosis‐control US | ||
Flow and timing | No information on interval between index test and reference standard | ||
Comparative | |||
Notes | Authors declared no conflict of interest | ||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | No | ||
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) | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | |||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | |||
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | |||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | |||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (US) | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | |||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | |||
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | |||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | |||
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 | ||
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Low 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 |