Kim 2016.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | During a study period of 10 years, 2074 adult liver transplant (LT) recipients were identified. They were divided into 2 groups:
HCC (n = 970; 46.8%) and non‐HCC (n = 1104; 53.2%). Age range and % of males not reported |
||
| Patient characteristics and setting | A total of 2074 patients underwent living‐donor LT (n = 1825) or deceased‐donor LT (n = 249) with a mean MELD score 17.0 ± 9.3. | ||
| Index tests | AFP and DCP were measured at the time of pretransplant workup. "The upper normal ranges of AFP and DCP in our institution are 7.5 ng/mL and 40 mAU/mL, respectively." | ||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Patients were divided into 2 groups:
HCC (n = 970; 46.8%) and non‐HCC (n =1104; 53.2%), according to the presence or absence of viable HCC at the explant liver. |
||
| Flow and timing | No data on interval between index test and reference standard | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | No conflicts of interest declared | ||
| 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? | 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? | 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? | 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 | ||