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 |