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

Sun 2020.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling The study included 146 HCV‐infected patients; 40 patients with early‐stage HCC and 106 non‐malignant HCV‐associated chronic liver disease.
Age range not reported. Males 63%
Patient characteristics and setting  
Index tests Serum AFP measurement: no specification. No definition of a cut‐off value
Target condition and reference standard(s) All HCC patients were on top of HCV cirrhosis and were confirmed by histological examination. Diagnosis of HCV‐related chronic liver disease was based on standard clinical, biochemical, serological, and ultrasonographic criteria, as well as the histopathological data obtained at liver biopsy.
Flow and timing No information on interval between index test and reference standard
Comparative  
Notes "Conflicts of interest: the authors declare that they have no competing interests."
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? Unclear    
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?     High
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