From: Methods for identifying surgical wound infection after discharge from hospital: a systematic review
QUADAS Item | Sands (1996) | Sands (1999) | Sands (2003) | Whitby (2002) | Seaman & Lammers (1991) | Mitchell (1999) | Martini (2000) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patient who will receive the test in practice? | Yes | Yes | No. CABG patients with a probability score of 0.1 of developing an SSI. | No. Chose moderate to high-risk patients only. | No. Only included patients with lacerations treated at A & E. | Yes | Unclear. Not enough information presented |
Were the selection criteria clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No. Patients included if had a surgical wound that could be easily observed and if procedure undertaken had a moderate to high risk infection probability but not stated how this was calculated. | Yes | No. | No |
Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition. | Unclear | Unclear | No. Relies on reporting, no observation. | Unclear. Different health professionals engaged in study had different levels of agreement. | Yes | Unclear | No. |
Is the time period between the reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? | Â | Â | Â | Unclear. As authors did not specify what type of surgery was undertaken it is not known whether the follow-up period was sufficient to detect infections. | Unclear | No | Unclear |
Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No. Only those whose surgeon completed the questionnaire | Yes |
Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the test result? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? | Unclear | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes |
Was the execution of the reference test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference test? | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes |
Were the results of the reference standard interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes |
Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? | No. The information available in this standard would not be available in the UK. | No. The information available in this standard would not be available in the UK. | No. The information available in this standard would not be available in the UK. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Were uninterpretable/Intermediate test results reported? | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Were withdrawals from the study explained? | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |