Ismail 2017b.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | The studied patients and controls were divided into the following groups:
Group I (GI): included 30 patients with liver cirrhosis Group II (GII): included 30 cirrhotic patients with HCC fulfilling HCC criteria on tri‐phasic CT scan Group III (GIII): included 30 healthy individuals Exclusion criteria: a past history or evidence of other malignancies, autoimmune disorders, organ failure, and other causes of cirrhosis (e.g. alcoholic and non‐alcoholic fatty liver diseases). Age range not reported. Males 55% |
||
| Patient characteristics and setting | |||
| Index tests | Serum AFP: no specification. No definition of the cut‐off value | ||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | All studied groups were subjected to abdominal ultrasound, while GI and GII were subjected to Tri‐phasic CT scan abdomen. | ||
| Flow and timing | No information on interval between index test and reference standard | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | No information on conflicts 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? | Yes | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||