Table 1

QUADAS quality assessment checklist applied to MRCP studies

Study

1. Patient spectrum

2. Selection criteria

3. Reference standard

4. Time period

5. Verification bias

6. Same RS

7. RS independent of IT

8. IT described in detail

9. RS described in detail

10. IT interpreted without RS

11. RS interpreted without IT

12. All clinical data

13. All test results

14. Withdrawals


Adamek[9]

yes

yes

yes

unclear

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Angulo[11]

yes

yes

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

yes

no

Yes

yes

Barish[12]

yes

yes

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

unclear

no

yes

yes

Calvo[13]

unclear

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

unclear

yes

unclear

yes

Yes

yes

Chan[14]

yes

unclear

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

unclear

yes

yes

no

Yes

yes

Demartines [15]

yes

yes

unclear

unclear

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

Dwerryhouse[16]

unclear

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

unclear

yes

unclear

Yes

yes

Guibaud [18]

yes

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

yes

no

Yes

yes

Holzknecht[20]

unclear

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

yes

yes

unclear

Yes

yes

Laokpessi [21]

no

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

unclear

unclear

Yes

yes

Lee[22]

yes

yes

yes

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

yes

yes

unclear

No

yes

Lomanto [23]

yes

unclear

unclear

unclear

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

unclear

unclear

unclear

No

no

Lomas[24]

yes

yes

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

no

no

yes

Yes

yes

Macaulay [25]

yes

unclear

yes

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

unclear

no

No

no

Regan[26]

yes

unclear

yes

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

unclear

unclear

Yes

yes

Reinhold [27]

yes

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

Yes

unclear

yes

Yes

yes

Soto 1996[28]

no

unclear

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

Yes

unclear

no

No

unclear

Soto 2000b[29]

yes

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

unclear

Yes

yes

no

Yes

yes

Soto 2000a[30]

yes

yes

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

unclear

Yes

yes

no

Yes

yes

Stiris[31]

yes

unclear

unclear

yes

yes

yes

N/a

yes

no

yes

yes

unclear

Unclear

unclear

Sugiyama[32]

unclear

no

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

no

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Taylor[33]

yes

yes

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

no

Yes

yes

unclear

Yes

yes

Textor[34]

yes

unclear

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

Yes

unclear

no

Yes

yes

Varghese [35]

unclear

unclear

unclear

no

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Zidi[36]

yes

no

unclear

yes

no

yes

N/a

yes

yes

Yes

unclear

no

No

no


RS = reference standard (ERCP); IT = index test (MRCP).

QUADAS Questions

1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?

2. Were selection criteria clearly described?

3. Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

4. Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests?

5. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis?

6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result?

7. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard?

8. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test?

9. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication?

10. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

11. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

12. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice?

13. Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported?

14. Were withdrawals from the study explained?

Kaltenthaler et al. BMC Medical Imaging 2006 6:9   doi:10.1186/1471-2342-6-9

Open Data