clinical data authors which clinical authors which clinical authors which clinical authors which clinical information available when information graders received information graders received information graders received graders received when grading test results were when grading images). when grading images). when grading images). images). interpreted as would be available (unclear risk of clinical review (unclear risk of clinical review (unclear risk of clinical review (unclear risk of clinical review bias) when the test is bias) bias) bias) used in practice? 10 Were Yes (7/243 (2.9%) excluded Yes (8/600 (1.3%) excluded Yes (1/57 FAF images (1.8%) Unclear. Not reported. uninterpretable/ from analysis), but not stated from analysis), but not stated to excluded from analysis) intermediate test to which test they applied. which test they applied. results reported? (unclear risk of image (unclear risk of image (low risk of image classification (unclear risk of image classification classification bias) classification bias) bias) bias) 11 Were withdrawals The only missing data were The only missing data were due The only missing data were 1 There did not appear to be any from the study due to poor quality images to poor quality images (1.3%). poor quality image (1.8%) plus 1 missing data, although this was not explained? (2.9%). However, sample size However, sample size was not missing image (1.8%). explicitly reported. was not explicitly stated for explicitly stated for test test accuracy results. accuracy results. (low risk of attrition bias) (low risk of attrition bias) (low risk of attrition bias) (low risk of attrition bias)
clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? authors which clinical information graders received when grading images). (unclear risk of clinical review bias) authors which clinical information graders received when grading images). (unclear risk of clinical review bias) authors which clinical information graders received when grading images). (unclear risk of clinical review bias) authors which clinical information graders received when grading images). (unclear risk of clinical review bias) 10 Were uninterpretable/ intermediate test results reported? Yes (7/243 (2.9%) excluded from analysis), but not stated to which test they applied. (unclear risk of image classification bias) Yes (8/600 (1.3%) excluded from analysis), but not stated to which test they applied. (unclear risk of image classification bias) Yes (1/57 FAF images (1.8%) excluded from analysis) (low risk of image classification bias) Unclear. Not reported. (unclear risk of image classification bias) 11 Were withdrawals from the study explained? The only missing data were due to poor quality images (2.9%). However, sample size was not explicitly stated for test accuracy results. (low risk of attrition bias) The only missing data were due to poor quality images (1.3%). However, sample size was not explicitly stated for test accuracy results. (low risk of attrition bias) The only missing data were 1 poor quality image (1.8%) plus 1 missing image (1.8%). (low risk of attrition bias) There did not appear to be any missing data, although this was not explicitly reported. (low risk of attrition bias)
eye201719x4.docx