Skip to main content

Table 1 Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis

From: Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance

Abstracts 1. Single PETS were studieda
2. PETS were compared to a reference test
3. Living humans were studied (animal, cadaver and general anaesthetic studies were excluded)
4. Study was not merely about fractures, dislocations of joints or nerve dysfunction
5. Article was in English or Scandinavian languages
Full-text articlesa 1–5. Same as above
6. The study included at least 20 patients
7. Sensitivity or specificity was reported or possible to discern for at least one PETS
8. The reference test was plausible (Supplement) for the condition studied
9. Risk of bias was acceptable, ie. patient selection criteria were clearly described (QUADAS question 2) and at least 8 of the 14 QUADAS items were scored “yes”
Requirement for pooling of data 10. Construction of 2 × 2 contingency tables was possible and at least 2 studies reported PETS that were conducted and interpreted in the same ways
  1. PETS-physical examination test(s) of the shoulder, QUADAS-quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, 1 Articles that met criteria 1–8 were assessed with QUADAS.
  2. aStudies that reported test characteristics for several single tests or combinations were also included as long as data on test performance for at least one single test was provided