Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of bias table for HCV antibody

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

  Patient selection Bias Index test Bias Reference standard Bias Flow 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?
All patients recruited into the study are included in the analysis?
 
Brandao No case control design, consecutive sample, no exclusions LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Croom Sampling from high-risk and low risk groups UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR All patients included, same reference standard LR
Chevaliez NR UR NR UR NR UR NR UR
Dokubo No case control, concurrent sampling from a prospective cohort LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard, all patients recruited included in analysis LR
Flores Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard, all patients recruited included in analysis LR
Gruner NR UR Not blinded, NR UR NR UR NR UR
Kania Consecutive recruitment LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported LR
Larrat Consecutive recruitment, but of known cases and known negative controls HR blinded LR Blinded LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Lee Consecutive recruitment LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Lukacs NR UR NR UR NR UR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
McCarron Case control, known positive and negative cases from prevalence survey HR NR UR NR UR NR UR
Marques 2012 No case control design LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Marques 2016 NR UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR NR, same reference standard, NR UR
Mossner Sampling from high-risk and low risk groups UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased UR Sampling reported, same reference standard, all patients included in analysis LR
Nandagopal NR UR NR UR NR UR NR UR
O Brien No case control design, LR Blinded LR Blinded LR Sampling partly reported, same reference standard LR
Parker Case control design HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Sampling partly reported, same reference standard LR
Ross Possible case control design, sampling NR HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Flow reported LR
Sheperd No case control design, but partly sampling from patients with known disease LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Soulier Sampling from high-risk and low risk-groups HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR, same reference standard, NR LR
Tejada-Strop Case control HR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
Tuaillon, E Case control HR Blinded LR Blinded LR Sampling reported, same reference standard LR
Waterboer, T No case control LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR Not blinded, interpretation unbiased LR NR UR
  1. Abbreviations: LR: low risk, HR: high risk, UR: unknown risk, NR: not reported; shaded: low risk of bias