Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk-of-bias assessment of studies published after March 2007

From: F-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography imaging in primary staging of patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review

Study Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5a Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Risk of bias
Maubec and colleagues [28] Yes Unclear Yes Yes No Yes Unclear Yes Yes Unclear Low
Strobel and colleagues [36] No Unclear Yes Yes No No Unclear Unclear Yes Unclear High
Singh and colleagues [23] Yes Unclear Yes Yes No Yes No Unclear Yes Unclear High
Bastiaannet and colleagues [35] Yes Unclear Yes Yes No Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Unclear Low
Veit-Haibach and colleagues [37] Yes Yes Yes Yes No Unclear Yes No Yes Unclear High
Aukema and colleagues [34] Unclear Unclear Yes Yes No Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Unclear High
  1. Item 1, reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition appropriately; item 2, time period between reference standard and index test appropriate; item 3, interdependence of test appropriate; item 4, partial verification avoided; item 5, differential verification bias; item 6, incorporation bias; item 7, reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test; item 8, intention-to-diagnose analysis performed; item 9, Free from selective reporting; item 10, no other aspects. Yes, low risk of bias; no, high risk of bias; unclear, information for assessment of the item is missing.
  2. aPositron emission tomography (PET) studies had a differential verification bias because PET nonresponders were only followed up, instead of undergoing a biopsy. Item 5 was not considered in the risk-of-bias assessment.