|
Study
|
Selection
|
Comparability
|
Outcome assessment
|
Score
|
|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5, 6
|
7
|
8
|
9
| |
|---|
|
D’ Annibale 2013
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*, *
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
9
|
|
Panteleimonitis 2016
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*, 0
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
8
|
|
Park 2014
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*, *
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
9
|
|
Kim 2012
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*, *
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
9
|
- Explanation
- 1: Adequate definition of the cases, study-enrolled cases with independent validation. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 2: Representative of the cases, consecutive or obviously representative cases. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 3: Selection of controls, community controls. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 4: Clear definition of the controls, no previous history of the same procedure. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 5: Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis, the patients baseline characteristics were similar between different groups. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 6: Comparability of cases and controls for other factors, the same type of procedure, the same surgical team to perform the procedure. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 7: Ascertainment of exposure, complete surgical records. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 8: Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls. (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
- 9: Adequacy of follow up of cohorts (yes, *; no or not reported, 0)
