Avcu 2013.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient Sampling | Type of study: prospective | ||
| Patient characteristics and setting | Sample size: 55 Females: 26 Mean age: 35.6 Inclusion criteria: consecutive patients with suspected appendicitis Exclusion criteria: patients diagnosed with appendicitis that refused surgery Setting: university hospital, Turkey, 2009 to 2010 |
||
| Index tests | Index test: MRI Index test criteria for positive diagnosis: see Appendix 5 |
||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Target condition: appendicitis Reference standard: histology or follow‐up |
||
| Flow and timing | Type and length of follow‐up: unclear Number of participants who were excluded from the analysis: 5 (8.3%) |
||
| Comparative | |||
| Notes | No details on clinical follow‐up described in the methods, and limited to "observation period" in the results. | ||
| Methodological quality | |||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
| Avoids Inappropriate Exclusion | 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 (All tests) | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Unclear | ||
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
| Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | Unclear risk | ||
| Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
| Are the reference standards (histo or F/U) likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
| Were the reference standard (histo or F/U) results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test | Unclear | ||
| Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Unclear 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 | |||
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | No | ||
| Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
| >95% histo or F/U | Yes | ||
| all +ve MRI had surgery or F/U | Yes | ||
| all ‐ve MRI had surgery or F/U | Yes | ||
| choice of reference standard independent of MRI | Unclear | ||
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | High risk | ||