Ye 2019b.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | This study enrolled a total of 1244 participants, including HCC, healthy controls, benign liver tumours, chronic hepatitis B, and liver cirrhosis Age range and % males not reported |
||
| Patient characteristics and setting | |||
| Index tests | Serum AFP measurement: no specification. No predefinition of a cut‐off value | ||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Diagnosis of LC was based on a history of CHB infection, confirmed by biopsy or two imaging technologies, i.e., hepatic ultrasound with CT or MRI. To limit the possible presence of early‐stage HCC clinically unrecognised in cirrhosis Patients with cirrhosis with < 20 years of chronic hepatitis history and in compensated phase of the disease were preferred. HCC was diagnosed based on ultrasound, CT, or MRI and AFP serolology and confirmed by histopathology according to guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD). | ||
| 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? | 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? | 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? | 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? | No | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | High risk | ||