Table 5: Evidence Profile for Recommendation 3: Should targeted case review versus random case review be used for diagnostic evaluation of pathology materials? Quality assessment No. of patients Effect Quality Importance Targeted Random Risk of Other Relative No. of Design Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision case case Absolute bias considerations (95% CI) studies review review Discrepancy rate 105 more no OR 5.6 per 1000 observational serious no serious no serious no serious 50/380 195/7444  1 none (4.1 to (from 73 studies risk of inconsistency indirectness imprecision (13.2%) (2.6%) LOW 7.8) more to bias 147 more) Major discrepancy 28 more no OR 9.0 per 1000  observational serious no serious no serious no serious 12/380 27/7444 1 none (4.5 to (from 12 studies risk of inconsistency indirectness imprecision (3.2%) (0.36%) 18) more to LOW bias 58 more) CI confidence interval; OR Odds ratio – – Figure 1: Discrepancy rate distribution by sample size5-112
Table 5: Evidence Profile for Recommendation 3: Should targeted case review versus random case 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 Targeted case review Random case review Relative (95% CI) Absolute Discrepancy rate 1 observational studies no serious risk of bias no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 50/380 (13.2%) 195/7444 (2.6%) OR 5.6 (4.1 to 7.8) 105 more per 1000 (from 73 more to 147 more)  LOW Major discrepancy 1 observational studies no serious risk of bias no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 12/380 (3.2%) 27/7444 (0.36%) OR 9.0 (4.5 to 18) 28 more per 1000 (from 12 more to 58 more)  LOW CI – confidence interval; OR – Odds ratio Figure 1: Discrepancy rate distribution by sample size5-112
IDER%20Supplemental%20Material%205%207%2015,%20KG.docx