2. Threats to Validity table profiling risk of bias in included studies Threats to validity Alpert Ash Barnish Coates Donovan Hall Lesser McKinlay McNamara Miller Monetta Pell Selection bias ? ? ? ? ? ?       (Diagnostic accuracy) Selection bias ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?     (Participant representativeness) Selection bias NA NA NA ? NA        (Group equivalence) Chance ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?   (Sample size rationale) Detection bias             (Task validity) Detection bias ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  effects) Detection/Reporting ? ? ? ?         bias (Appropriate analysis) Reporting bias ?            (Conflict of interest) Quality 29 50 71 14 63 38 50 38 38 86 63 50 % ✓ summary Classification L M H L M L M L L H M M ✓ = high quality (low risk of bias), low quality (high risk of bias), ? = unclear, NA = not applicable to study design. H = overall high quality, M = overall moderate quality, L = overall low quality – = calculation details given in methods
2. Threats to Validity table profiling risk of bias in included studies Threats to validity Alpert Ash Barnish Coates Donovan Hall Lesser McKinlay McNamara Miller Monetta Pell Selection bias (Diagnostic accuracy) ?   ? ?   ? ?   ? Selection bias (Participant representativeness) ?   ? ? ? ? ?   ? ? Selection bias (Group equivalence) NA  NA NA   ?   NA   Chance (Sample size rationale) ? ?  ?  ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Detection bias (Task validity)             Detection bias effects) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  ? ? Detection/Reporting bias (Appropriate analysis) ?   ?  ?  ?     Reporting bias (Conflict of interest)    ?         Quality summary % ✓ 29 50 71 14 63 38 50 38 38 86 63 50 Classification L M H L M L M L L H M M ✓ = high quality (low risk of bias), = low quality (high risk of bias), ? = unclear, NA = not applicable to study design. H = overall high quality, M = overall moderate quality, L = overall low quality – calculation details given in methods