Items | Descriptions |
---|---|
Adapted items | |
QUADAS 3 | Original: Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? |
New: Is the reference standard likely to correctly measure the target joint range of motion? | |
QUADAS 5 | Original: Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? |
New: Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample receive verification using a reference standard of measurement? | |
Removed items | |
QUADAS 7 | Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e., the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? |
QUADAS 12 | Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? |
QUADAS 13 | Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported? |
Added items based on Williams, et al42 | |
Were appropriate descriptive statistics presented (means, SD, or SEM)? | |
Were appropriate inferential statistics presented (correlation coefficient or agreement stats with CI)? |
From Whiting, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25; with Creative Commons Attribution License, CC-BY 4.0. From Williams, et al. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010;33:138–55; with permission. QUADAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies; SEM: standard error of the mean.