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

Son 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Prospective cohort of patients with cirrhosis
Age range: 52‐62. Male 57%
Patient characteristics and setting  
Index tests Ultrasound; positivity criteria according to US LI‐RAD category
Target condition and reference standard(s) CT MRI pathological examination
Flow and timing MRI within 7 days, additional CT within 3 months
Comparative  
Notes Conflicts of interest present and reported
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? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (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+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? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
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? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Low risk