Table 4.
Evaluation of methodological qualities of observational included studies
| Items/author* | [[15]] | [[16]] | [[17]] | [[18]] | [[24]] | [[26]] | [[27]] | [[28]] | [[29]] | [[30]] | [[31]] | [[32]] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case series collected in more than one centre, i.e. multi-centre study |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Are the inclusion andexclusion criteria (case definition) clearly reported? |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Is there a clear definition of the outcomes reported? |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Were data collected prospectively? |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Is there an explicit statement that patients were recruited consecutively? |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Are the main findings of the study clearly described? |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Are outcomes stratified? (e.g., by disease stage, abnormal test results, patient characteristics) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Total Score | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
Yes = 1 No(not reported, not available) = 0.
Total score, 8; ≤3, poor quality; 4–6, fair quality; ≥7, good quality.
* Named by reference number and listed in chronological order.