1 Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? N Y N Y 2 Were selection criteria clearly described? Y Y Y U 3 Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? Y Y Y Y 4 Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? (≤3 months) Y Y U U 5 Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? Y Y Y Y 6 Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? Y Y Y Y 7 Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? Y Y Y Y 8 Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? N Y Y N 9 Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Y Y N N 10 Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? U U U U 11 Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? U U U U 12 Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used in practice? Y Y Y Y 13 Were uninterpretable/ intermediate test results reported? Y Y Y Y 14 Were withdrawals from the study explained? Y Y Y Y Score 10 12 9 8 Supplementary Table 5. Study characteristics: An overview of studies regarding FIB-4 for prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis. First author (Year) Regions Study description No. Pts Age (year) Male (%) Etiology of cirrhosis HCC (%) Child-Pugh class (%) No. Pts who underwent endoscopy Location of varices Prevalence of varices (%) Prevalence of large varices (%) Definitions of large varices Cut-off of varices/ large varices QUADAS Score
1 Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? N N Y Y N 2 Were selection criteria clearly described? Y Y Y U Y 3 Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? Y Y Y Y Y 4 Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? (≤3 months) U U Y U U 5 Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? Y Y Y Y Y 6 Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? Y Y Y Y Y 7 Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? Y Y Y Y Y 8 Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? Y Y Y N Y 9 Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Y Y Y N Y 10 Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? U U U U U 11 Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? U U U U U 12 Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as be available when the test is used in practice? Y Y Y U Y 13 Were uninterpretable/ intermediate test results reported? Y Y Y Y Y 14 Were withdrawals from the study explained? Y Y Y Y Y Score 10 10 12 7 10 Supplementary Table 7. Study characteristics: An overview of studies regarding Lok for prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis. First author (Year) Regions Study description No. Pts Age (year) Male (%) Etiology of cirrhosis HCC (%) Child-Pugh class (%) No. Pts who underwent endoscopy Location of varices Prevalence of varices (%) Prevalence of varices (%) Definitions of large varices Cut-off of varices/ large varices QUADAS Score
Supplementary Table 10. Study quality: An overview of studies regarding Forns score for prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis. No. Item Stefanescu Sebastiani Hassan 1 Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? N Y N 2 Were selection criteria clearly described? Y Y Y 3 Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? Y Y Y 4 Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? (≤3 months) U Y U 5 Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? Y Y Y 6 Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? Y Y Y 7 Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? Y Y Y 8 Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? Y Y Y 9 Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Y Y Y 10 Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? U U U 11 Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? U U U 12 Were the same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as be available when the test is used in practice? Y Y Y 13 Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported? Y Y Y 14 Were withdrawals from the study explained? Y Y Y 10 12 10 Supplementary Table 11. Study characteristics: An overview of studies regarding FibroIndex for prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis.
author (Year) Regions description No. total Pts Age (year) Male (%) Etiology of cirrhosis HCC (%) Child-Pugh class (%) who underwent endoscopy Location of varices Prevalence of varices (%) Prevalence of varices (%) Definitions of large varices varices/ varices QUADAS Score Sebastiani (2010) Italy Retrospective 510 59.5±11 58.0% HBV 8.8%, HCV 55.1%, alcohol 30.4%, cryptogenic or others 5.7% 0.0% A 79.4% B 16.7% C 3.9% 510 EV 56.9% 19.0% Non-confluent EV protruding in the despite insufflation; confluent thick EV, gastroesophageal junction varices and isolated GVs. 2.2/ 2.5 12 Abbreviations: EV, esophageal varices; GV, gastric varices; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, hepatitis C virus; NA, not available. Supplementary 12. Study quality: An overview of studies regarding FibroIndex for prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis. No. Item Sebastiani 1 Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in practice? Y 2 Were selection criteria clearly described? Y 3 Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? Y 4 Is the time period between reference standard and index test short enough to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? (≤3 months) Y 5 Did the whole sample or a random selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference standard of diagnosis? Y 6 Did patients receive the same reference standard regardless of the index test result? Y 7 Was the reference standard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference standard)? Y 8 Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? Y 9 Was the execution of the reference standard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? Y 10 Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? U 11 Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? U