Table 2.

Quality of reporting assessment for seven studies included in the systematic review

Quality of reporting criterion	Biau et al. [6]	Biau et al. [7]	Fenemma and Lubsen [16]	Gillam et al. [17]	Keurentjes et al. [24]	Ranstam et al. [38]*	Schwarzer et al. [41]
Was the number at risk presented at each followup time? (yes; no)	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes
Were the number of events of interest and competing events provided? (yes; no)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Was the number of losses to followup provided? (yes–count, proportion, or reason provided; no)	Yes, count†	Yes, count and reason	Yes, count	NA‡	Yes	No	Yes
Was the handling of losses to followup explicitly described? (yes; no)	No	Yes	Yes	NA‡	Yes	No	Yes
Was an adequate description of censoring provided? (yes–count provided; no)	Yes	Yes	Yes, count	Yes, count	Yes, count	Yes	Yes
Were cumulative incidence curves provided?
KM method	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
CR method	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Were estimates of precision around the cumulative incidence provided? (yes–described; no)	Yes, CIs	Yes, CI for KM method only	Yes, CIs	Yes, CIs	Yes, CI for KM method only	No	No
Was the name of the statistical software provided? (yes; no)	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No

* Excluded from meta-analysis because frequencies of events (ie, revisions and deaths) were not reported.

^†Provided in original article [21]; ^‡no losses to followup; CI = confidence interval; CR = competing-risks; KM = Kaplan-Meier; NA = not applicable.