Skip to main content

Table 1 QUADAS quality assessment checklist applied to MRCP studies

From: MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review

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
  1. RS = reference standard (ERCP); IT = index test (MRCP).
  2. QUADAS Questions
  3. 1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice?
  4. 2. Were selection criteria clearly described?
  5. 3. Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?
  6. 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?
  7. 5. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis?
  8. 6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result?
  9. 7. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard?
  10. 8. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test?
  11. 9. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication?
  12. 10. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?
  13. 11. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?
  14. 12. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice?
  15. 13. Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported?
  16. 14. Were withdrawals from the study explained?
Back to article page

BMC Medical Imaging

ISSN: 1471-2342

Contact us