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

Kim 2012.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Serum AFP levels were collected in 354 patients with liver disease and 196 patients with HCC.
Age range and % of males not reported
Patient characteristics and setting  
Index tests AFP: the serum AFP was measured using a routine automated method in chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (ARCHITECT i2000SR, Abbott). The cut‐off value for the AFP level was set at 20 ng/mL according to the manufacturer's instruction.
Target condition and reference standard(s) HCC: all cases of HCC were diagnosed by fine‐needle biopsy under the guidance of ultrasonography and surgery.
Flow and timing No information on interval between index test and reference standard
Comparative  
Notes No data 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? Unclear    
Was a case‐control design avoided? No    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
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? No    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
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? Unclear    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Unclear risk