Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the cohort studies

From: Effects of radiofrequency ablation versus other ablating techniques on hepatocellular carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

First author

Arms

Representativeness of exposed cohort

Selection of the non-exposed cohort

Ascertainment of exposure

Demonstration that outcome of interest wars not present at start

Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design

Assessment of outcome

Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur

Adequacy of follow-up of cohort

Lu MD [11]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Ohmoto K [14]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Zhang L [10]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Ding J [12]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Vogl TJ [9]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

 

*

*

Zhang NN [13]

MWA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Wakui N [20]

PEI vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Morimoto M [18]

PEI vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Luo BM [21]

PEI vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

Seror O [19]

PEI vs. RFA

*

 

*

*

**

*

*

*

Adam R [31]

CRA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Pearson AS [30]

CRA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Ei S [33]

CRA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Dunne RM [32]

CRA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

Wong SN [28]

PEI + RFA vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Chan AC [36]

HIFU vs. RFA

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

  1. A study can be awarded a maximum of * for each item
  2. A maximum of ** can be given for Comparability