Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for focal hepatic lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies scores¹ for each included study

Ref.	QUADAS items
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Zheng et al[11]	0	1	0	0.5	0	0	1	0	0.5	0.5	0.5	1	1
Imai et al[19]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	0.5	1	1
Lim et al[15]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	1	1
Zhang et al[20]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	0	0.5	1	0.5	1	1
Inoue et al[24]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	1	1
Park et al[18]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	0	0.5	0.5	1	1
Macarini et al[7]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	0.5	1	1
Yoon et al[16]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	1
Harisinghani et al[12]	1	1	1	0.5	0	1	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1
Yoo et al[8]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	0	0.5	0.5	1	1
Suzuki et al[21]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	0	0.5	0.5	0.5	1	1
Kobayashi et al[9]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	0.5	1	1
Kato et al[22]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0.5	1	1
Okada et al[23]	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	1
Chou et al[25]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0.5	0.5	0.5	1	1

¹1 = yes; 0 = no; 0.5 = unclear. Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) items: (1) Was the spectrum of a patient representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? (2) Were the selection criteria clearly described? (3) Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? (4) Is the time period between the index test and reference standard short enough to ensure 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 execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? (8) Was the execution of the reference standard test described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? (9) Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? (10) Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? (11) Were the same clinical data available when the test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in clinical practice? (12) Were uninterpretable or intermediate test results reported? (13) Were withdrawals from the study explained?