Table 1.
Assessment of the methodological quality of the case reports
| Reference (first author) | Selection | Ascertainment |
Causalitytd |
Reporting | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exposure | outcome | follow-up | ||||
| Shrestha, 2018 [27] | − | ★ | − | − | ★ | 2 |
| Mizokami, 2016 [28] | ★ | ★ | ★ | −a | ★ | 4 |
| Jeon, 2016 [29] | ★ | ★ | − | − | − | 2 |
| Diaconescu, 2016 [30] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Shen, 2015 [31] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Yang, 2015 [32] | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 5 |
| Hengjeerajarus, 2015 [33] | − | ★ | − | − | ★ | 2 |
| Tarui, 2014 [34] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Nam, 2013 [35] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Binesh, 2011 [36] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Melo, 2010 [37] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Kojima, 2009 [38] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Kojima, 2009 [39] | − | ★ | ★ | −a | ★ | 4 |
| Licci, 2008 [40] | − | ★ | ★ | − | − | 2 |
| Colović, 2007 [41] | ★ | ★ | ★ | −a | ★ | 5 |
| Castronovo, 2005 [42] | − | ★ | ★ | − | − | 2 |
| Shah, 2004 [43] | − | ★ | ★ | − | − | 2 |
| Trouette, 2002 [44] | − | ★ | ★ | − | ★ | 3 |
| Gogas, 2002 [45] | − | ★ | − | − | ★ | 2 |
| Ghazanfar, 2002 [46] | − | ★ | − | − | ★ | 2 |
a
The adequacy of the follow-up period was documented, but not in all cases.