Table 2.
Results of quality assessment
| Internal validity | |||
| Q1 |
Were selection criteria clearly described? |
||
| |
Yes |
61 |
95.3% |
| |
No |
3 |
4.7% |
| Q2 |
Were any quality assurance measures for managing and/or collecting data described? |
||
| |
Yes |
24 |
37.5% |
| |
No |
40 |
62.5% |
| Q3 |
Were missing data adequately managed? |
||
| |
Yes |
38 |
59.4% |
| |
No |
28 |
43.8% |
| |
Two studies were double-counted because a part of variable were excluded and the rest of variables were estimated. |
||
| Q4 |
Was the length of follow-up described? |
||
| |
Yes |
35 |
54.7% |
| |
No |
29 |
45.3% |
| Q5 |
Was the version of the reference code systems used described? |
||
| |
Yes |
24 |
37.5% |
| |
No |
40 |
62.5% |
| Q6 |
Was the derivation of coefficients of TRISS or weights of ICISS described? |
||
| |
Yes |
41 |
34.5% |
| |
No |
11 |
9.2% |
| |
NA |
14 |
11.8% |
| |
Two studies described the derivation of only a part of scores studied. |
||
| Q7 |
Were the new coefficients or weights validated? |
||
| |
Yes |
25 |
89.3% |
| |
No |
3 |
10.7% |
| External validity | |||
| Q8 |
Was the description of the study population reported? |
||
| |
Yes |
62 |
96.9% |
| |
No |
2 |
3.1% |
| Q9 |
Was the study conducted using multi-institutional population? |
||
| |
Yes |
28 |
51.9% |
| |
No |
36 |
48.1% |
| Q10 |
Was the precision of AUROC, such as standard error, reported? |
||
| |
Yes |
31 |
48.4% |
| No | 33 | 51.6% | |
NA, not applicable; AUROC, area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve; TRISS, Trauma and Injury Severity Score; ICISS, International Classification of Diseases-based.