Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 14;2021(12):CD012028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012028.pub2

Dillman 2016.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Type of study: retrospective
Patient characteristics and setting Sample size: 103
Females: 56
Mean age: 11.5
Inclusion criteria: paediatric patients (< 18 years) with suspected appendicitis and equivocal ultrasound
Exclusion criteria: MRI scan not completed
Setting: university hospital, USA, 2013 to 2014
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: case note review to exclude readmission within 30 days
Number of participants who were excluded from the analysis: 3
Comparative  
Notes  
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 Unclear    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Unclear 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? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Unclear    
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?     High
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? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
>95% histo or F/U No    
all +ve MRI had surgery or F/U Yes    
all ‐ve MRI had surgery or F/U No    
choice of reference standard independent of MRI No    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   High risk