Table 1.
Authors | Study Design | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | Domain 4 | Domain 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ||
[3] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[13] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[14] | Case report | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[28] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[29] | Multiple-case study | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y |
[30] | Prospective study | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[31] | Multiple-case study | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y |
[32] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | U | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NY |
[33] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[34] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[35] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | U | U | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | Y |
[36] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[37] | Multiple-case study | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[38] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[39] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[40] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[41] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[42] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[43] | Retrospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[44] | Prospective clinical trial | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[45] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[46] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[47] | Multiple-case study | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y |
[48] | Case report | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | NA | Y |
[48] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[49] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[49] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
[50] | Case report | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[51] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[52] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[53] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[54] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y |
[55] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | NA | N |
[56] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | NA | Y |
[7] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | NA | Y |
[57] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | NA | N |
[58] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | NA | Y |
[59] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | N | Y | NA | Y |
[60] | Case report | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | NA | N |
[61] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | NA | N |
[62] | Case report | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | U | U | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | NA | N |
[63] | Prospective study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y |
Domains and Questions: Domain 1: objective(s) and subject characteristics. (1) Was (Were) the objective(s) of the study clearly defined? (2) Was (Were) the chosen subject sample(s) and size appropriate for the objective(s) of the study? (3) Are the baseline and demographic characteristics of the subjects (age, sex, ethnicity, healthy or diseased, etc.) appropriate and clearly defined? (4) Could the method of subject selection have in any way introduced bias into the study? Domain 2: study design. (5) Does the study design appropriately address the research question(s)? (6) Were the materials used in the study appropriate for the given objective(s) of the study? (7) Were the methods used in the study appropriate for the given objective(s) of the study? (8) Was the study design, including methods/techniques applied in the study, widely accepted or standard in the literature? If “no”, are the novel features of the study design clearly described? (9) Could the study design have in any way introduced bias into the study? Domain 3: methodology characterization. (10) Are the methods/techniques applied in the study described in enough detail for them to be reproduced? (11) Was the specialty and the experience of the individual(s) performing each part of the study (such as cadaveric dissection or image assessment) clearly stated? (12) Are all the materials and methods used in the study clearly described, including details of manufacturers, suppliers, etc.? (13) Were appropriate measures taken to reduce inter- and intra-observer variability? (14) Do the images presented in the study indicate an accurate reflection of the methods/techniques (imaging, cadaveric, intraoperative, etc.) applied in the study? (15) Could the characterization of methods have in any way introduced bias into the study? Domain 4: descriptive anatomy. (16) Were the anatomical definition(s) (normal anatomy, variations, classifications, etc.) clearly and accurately described? (17) Were the outcomes and parameters assessed in the study (variation, length, diameter, etc.) appropriate and clearly defined? (18) Were the figures (images, illustrations, diagrams, etc.) presented in the study clear and understandable? (19) Were any ambiguous anatomical observations (i.e., those likely to be classified as “others”) clearly described/depicted? (20) Could the description of anatomy have in any way introduced bias into the study? Domain 5: reporting of results. (21) Was the statistical analysis appropriate? (22) Are the reported results as presented in the study clear and comprehensible, and are the reported values consistent throughout the manuscript? (23) Do the reported numbers or results always correspond to the number of subjects in the study? If not, do the authors clearly explain the reason(s) for subject exclusion? (24) Are all potential confounders reported in the study, and subsequently measured and evaluated, if appropriate? (25) Could the reporting of results have in any way introduced bias into the study? (Tomaszewski et al. [13]).