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)
