Table 4: Evidence profile for Recommendation 2: Should prospective review versus retrospective review be used for diagnostic evaluation of pathology materials? Quality assessment No. of patients Effect Quality Importance Relative No of Risk Other Prospective Retrospective Design Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision (95% Absolute studies of bias considerations review review CI) Discrepancy Rate 510/15515 RD no 0.13% -  (3.3%) ranged observational serious no serious no serious no serious 4 none from IMPORTANT studies risk of inconsistency indirectness imprecision 3.4% - to LOW bias 1.1 13% - Major discrepancy 32/6129 RD no 0.1% -  (0.52%) ranged observational serious no serious no serious no serious 2 none from IMPORTANT studies risk of inconsistency indirectness imprecision to LOW bias 1.7% - CI confidence interval; RD risk difference – –
Table 4: Evidence profile for Recommendation 2: Should prospective review versus retrospective review be used for diagnostic evaluation of pathology materials? Quality assessment No. of patients Effect Quality Importance No of studies Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Prospective review Retrospective review Relative (95% CI) Absolute Discrepancy Rate 4 observational studies no serious risk of bias no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 510/15515 (3.3%) 0.13% RD ranged from to 1.1 -  LOW IMPORTANT 3.4% - 13% - Major discrepancy 2 observational studies no serious risk of bias no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 32/6129 (0.52%) 0.1% RD ranged from to -  LOW IMPORTANT 1.7% - CI – confidence interval; RD – risk difference
IDER%20Supplemental%20Material%205%207%2015,%20KG.docx