Table 3 The revised QUADAS-2 tool for risk of bias assessment
Domains | Signal questions | Answers |
|---|---|---|
“Patient” (literature) Selection | Risk of bias | |
Was a consecutive or random sample of literatures enrolled | Yes/no/unclear | |
Was a case-control design avoided | Yes/no/unclear | |
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions | Yes/no/unclear | |
Could the selection of literatures have introduced bias | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Concerns regarding applicability | ||
Is there concern that the included literatures do not match the review question | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Index test (AI algorithms in literature screening) | Risk of bias | |
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard | Yes/no/unclear | |
If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified | Yes/no/unclear | |
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Concerns regarding applicability | ||
Is there concern that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Reference standard (results of screening by human investigators) | Risk of bias | |
Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition | Yes/no/unclear | |
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test | Yes/no/unclear | |
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Concerns regarding applicability | ||
Is there concern that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question | Low/high/unclear risk | |
Flow and timing | Risk of bias | |
Did all literatures receive a reference standard | Yes/no/unclear | |
Did literatures receive the same reference standard | Yes/no/unclear | |
Were all literatures included in the analysis | Yes/no/unclear | |
Could the literature flow have introduced bias | Low/high/unclear risk |