Mieke Bus

36 Chapter 3 light by diagnosing five additional tumours and identifying border extension in another three tumours. (17) Although promising, this study could be subject to observer bias because of its design, in which WL and NBI ureterorenoscopy were performed subsequently by the same urologist. Yes Unclear No Bus et al, OCT, 2013 1 2B Traxer et al, NBI, 2011* 2A 2B WU et al, CLE, 2011 ** 2A 2B Aboumarzouk et al, PDD, 2013* 2A 2B 7. Reference standard results blinded? 8. Index test results blinded? 9. Relevant clinical information? 10. Uninterpretable results? 11. Explanation withdrawals? IDEAL stage 1. Representative spectrum? Level of Evidence 6. Incorporation avoided? 5. Differential verification avoided? 4. Partial verification avoided? 3. Acceptable delay between tests? 2. acceptable reference standard? Figure 2: Quality assessment according to QUADAS and IDEAL standards and Level of Evidence of human in-vivo studies. Only one OCT study was included, since two other studies were conducted ex-vivo. Only one study on PDD was included, since the other two studies were conducted by the same study group and likely to be conducted in the same patient group. * reference test: white light URS. ** This study was conducted in vivo in the bladder and ex vivo in the upper urinary tract. Since we can imagine that the results of the bladder resemble results in the upper urinary tract, we included this study for quality assessment.