Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias in studies included in the systematic review on detection of HB surface antigen

From: Diagnostic accuracy of serological diagnosis of hepatitis C and B using dried blood spot samples (DBS): two systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Author Patient selection Bias Index test Bias Reference standard Bias Flow and timing Bias
  Was a case control design avoided?
Consecutive or random sample of patients?
Inappropriate exclusions?
Blinded to reference standard
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?
Blinded to index?
Could the reference standard have introduced bias?
There is an appropriate interval between the index test and reference standard?
All patients receive the same reference standard and are included in the analysis?
Alidjinou NR, but no case control design UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Boa-Sorte No case control design, consecutive recruitment LR blinded LR blinded LR Same reference standard, all patients included in analysis LR
Brown Not reported UR Not reported UR Not reported UR Not reported UR
Farzadegan Only cases, no consecutive sampling HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Farghaly Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Forbi No case control design LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Sampling not reported, same reference standard UR
Gruner NR UR Not blinded, NR UR NR UR NR UR
Halfon NR, probably case control design UR Not blinded, NR UR Not blinded, NR UR NR UR
Kania Consecutive recruitment LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Sampling reported LR
Khan No case control design LR Not reported, unclear whether blinded UR Not reported, unclear whether blinded UR Sampling not reported UR
Lee Consecutive recruitment LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Lukacs Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling not reported, same reference standard UR
Mayer NR, probably case control UR Not reported, interpretation unbiased LR Not reported, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling not reported UR
Mendy Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported LR
Mohamed Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Mossner Sampling from high-risk and low risk groups HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Sampling reported, same reference standard, all patients included in analysis LR
Nielsen Only cases HR Not reported UR Not reported UR Sampling not reported UR
Parkinson Only cases HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling not reported, same reference standard UR
Ross Sampling not reported, probable case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Flow reported LR
Villa Case control design HR NR UR NR UR NR UR
Villar Case control design HR Bias possible, as selective samples by OD values HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported LR
Zhuang No case control design LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling not reported UR
Zoulek Unclear, but no case control design, probably random or successive LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling not reported, same reference standard LR
  1. Abbreviations: LR: low risk, HR: high risk, UR: unknown risk, NR: not reported; shaded: low risk of bias