Table 2.
QUADAS-2 evaluation
| Study | QUADAS Score* | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Bias | Appl | 4 | 5 | Bias | Appl | 6 | 7 | Bias | Appl | 8 | 9 | 10 | Bias | |
| Freedman BA | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Leunig M | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Toomayan GA | 0 | 1 | 1 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Chan YS | 0 | 1 | 1 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 0 | High |
| Byrd JW | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Mintz DN | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Studler U | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | High | NC | 0 | 1 | High |
| Petersilge CA | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | High | NC | 0 | 1 | High |
| Keeney JA | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Aprato A | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | High | 1 | 0 | 1 | High |
| Banks DB | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Magee T | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Tian CY | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Reurink G | 0 | 1 | 1 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Crespo-Rodríguez AM | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Carulli C | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Annabell L | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Saied AM | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Linda DD | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 0 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Sutter R | 0 | 1 | 1 | High | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | High | 1 | 0 | 1 | High |
| Sahin M | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Schmaranzer F | 1 | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | NC | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
| Lee GY | NC | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | 1 | 1 | Low | Low | NC | 1 | 1 | Low |
The numbers in the top row correspond to the following questions: Domain 1: Patient selection. Numbers correspond with the following questions: (1) Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? (2) Was a case–control design avoided? (3) Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Domain 2: Index test. Numbers correspond with the following questions: (4) Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? (5) If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified? Domain 3: Reference test. Numbers correspond with the following questions: (6) Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? (7) Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? Domain 4: Flow and timing. Numbers correspond with the following questions: (8) Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard? (9) Did all patients receive a reference standard? (10) Were all patients included in the analysis?
*Number 1 indicates “yes,” and 0 indicates “no”; Bias risk: of bias; Appl.: concerns regarding applicability; NC: not clear