Table 4.

Simplified QUADAS Form.

Study	Patient selection		Index test		Reference standard		Flow and timing
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?	Is there concern the included patients do not match the review question?	Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?	Is there concern that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?	Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its, interpretation have introduced bias?	Is there concern the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?	Could the patient flow have introduced bias?
Ahmed et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Al Sawaf et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Braga et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Butani et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Campillo et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Castellote et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Chinnock et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Chugh et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
De Araujo et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Gaya et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Jha et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Jothimani et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Khatwani et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Kim et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Li et al.	H	L	H	L	H	L	H
Nalmpantidis et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Nousbaum et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Oey et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Rerknimitr et al. (2006)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Rerknimitr et al. (2010)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Ribeiro et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Sapey et al. (JGH 1 & 2)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Sapey et al. (LI)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Sarwar et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Tellez et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Thevenot et al. (2004)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Thevenot et al. (2016)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Torun et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Vanbiervliet et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
Wisniewki et al.	L	L	L	L	L	L	L

H, high; L, low, N, no; R, random; U, unclear; Y, yes.