For the first clinical question, we found 72 studies that
adhered to our inclusion criteria (see Additional File 2,
Table S2 for evidentiary information). These studies
included 226,606 individual patients. The level of evidence
according to CEBM was variable and overall judged to be
moderate (see Additional file 2, Table S2). Quality assessment
with the QUADAS tool (see Additional file 3, Table
S3) showed substantial bias in the studies, particularly
concerning the representativeness of the studied population
(selection bias, criteria 1), blinding of the index test
(criteria 8) and withdrawals (criteria 12). Studies scored
better regarding the reporting of selection criteria (criteria
2) and most had acceptable reference standards (criteria
3), although they were often described poorly.
For the first clinical question, we found 72 studies thatadhered to our inclusion criteria (see Additional File 2,Table S2 for evidentiary information). These studiesincluded 226,606 individual patients. The level of evidenceaccording to CEBM was variable and overall judged to bemoderate (see Additional file 2, Table S2). Quality assessmentwith the QUADAS tool (see Additional file 3, TableS3) showed substantial bias in the studies, particularlyconcerning the representativeness of the studied population(selection bias, criteria 1), blinding of the index test(criteria 8) and withdrawals (criteria 12). Studies scoredbetter regarding the reporting of selection criteria (criteria2) and most had acceptable reference standards (criteria3), although they were often described poorly.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..