Table 2: Risk of bias assessment of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool.
|
Study |
Patient Selection |
Index Test (UPCR) |
Reference Standard (24-hr urine) |
Flow and Timing |
Overall Risk |
Substantiation from original study/ rationale |
|
Durnwald & Mercer, 2003[12] |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Prospective design with defined inclusion/exclusion criteria (excluded chronic HTN, renal disease). UPCR obtained before 24-hour urine. Blinding not reported (unclear index text bias). |
|
Leanos-Miranda, et al. 2007 [13] |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Large cross-sectional study (>1,000) with clearly defined population and standardized testing. Random urine collected before/after 24-hr collection and physicians blinded to results. |
|
Saikul, et al. 2006 [14] |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
High |
High |
Clear diagnostic test design with gold standard (>300 mg/24 hr). However, patients excluded for incomplete 24-hr urine collection, introducing flow bias. |
|
Kumari, et al. 2006 [15] |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
400 consecutive patients which creates a low selection bias. Prospective design with standardized UPCR cutoff (0.3). Blinding not reported (unclear index text bias). |
|
Saudan, et al. 2005 [16] |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Low |
Unclear |
Moderate |
Uses accepted gold standard (24-hr urine), but limited reporting of enrollment, timing, and blinding. |