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

Donlon 2015.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Type of study: retrospective
Patient characteristics and setting Sample size: 29
Females: 29
Mean age: unclear
Inclusion criteria: pregnant women with suspected appendicitis
Exclusion criteria: unclear
Setting: Ireland, 2008 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
Number of participants who were excluded from the analysis: unclear
Comparative  
Notes Conference abstract
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Unclear    
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?     High
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? 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? Unclear    
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?     High
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? No    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Unclear    
>95% histo or F/U Unclear    
all +ve MRI had surgery or F/U Unclear    
all ‐ve MRI had surgery or F/U Unclear    
choice of reference standard independent of MRI Unclear    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   High risk