NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A, et al. Celiac Disease. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004 Sep. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 104.)
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
QUADAS Checklist
Item | Yes | No | Unclear |
---|---|---|---|
1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? | |||
2. Were selection criteria clearly described? | |||
3. Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? | |||
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 two tests? | |||
5. Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? | |||
6. Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? | |||
7. Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? | |||
8a. Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? | |||
8b. Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? | |||
9a. Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | |||
9b. Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? | |||
10. Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? | |||
11. Were uninterpretable/ intermediate test results reported? | |||
12. Were withdrawals from the study explained? |
Cross-Sectional/Prevalence Study Quality
Item | Yes | No | Unclear |
---|---|---|---|
1) Define the source of information (survey, record review) | |||
2) List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications | |||
3) Indicate time period used for identifying patients | |||
4) Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population-based | |||
5) Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants | |||
6) Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g., test/retest of primary outcome measurements) | |||
7) Explain any patient exclusions from analysis | |||
8) Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled. | |||
9) If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis | |||
10) Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection | |||
11) Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained |
Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: Cohort Studies
Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: Case Control Studies
- Appendix D. Quality Assessment Forms - Celiac DiseaseAppendix D. Quality Assessment Forms - Celiac Disease
- JGI_XZG50975.fwd NIH_XGC_tropGas7 Xenopus tropicalis cDNA clone IMAGE:7565762 5'...JGI_XZG50975.fwd NIH_XGC_tropGas7 Xenopus tropicalis cDNA clone IMAGE:7565762 5', mRNA sequencegi|72207168|gnl|dbEST|30666099|gb|C 08.2|Nucleotide
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...