Skip to main content

Table 3 QUADAS ratings

From: The location of the inferior angle of the scapula in relation to the spine in the upright position: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

QUADAS ITEM Cooperstein, 2009 [47] Teoh, 2009 [4] Arzola, 2011 [1] Kim, 2012 [3]
Abbreviations: Y = yes, N = no, U = unclear
1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? N Y N Y
2. Were selection criteria clearly described? Y Y Y Y
3. Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? Y Y Y Y
4. Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the 2 tests? Y Y Y Y
5. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? Y Y Y Y
6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index text result? Y Y Y Y
7. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (ie, the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? Y Y Y Y
8. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? Y Y Y Y
9. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Y Y Y Y
10. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? N Y Y Y
11. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? N Y N Y
12. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? Y Y Y Y
13. Were interpretable/intermediate test results reported? Y Y Y Y
14. Were withdrawals from the study explained? Y Y Y Y
Total quality score 11 14 12 14
  1. The Haneline study, one of the 5 articles included in this review, was not amenable to QUADAS rating and thus is not included in Table 3.