Table 2.
Quality Assessment of Case Series
| Question No. | Han et al., 201020 | Ahn et al., 201021 | Lee et al., 201822 | Krych et al., 201723 | Chung et al., 201824 | Tjoumakaris et al., 201525 | Alaia et al., 201726 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| 3 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | CD | CD |
| 4 | Y | N | Y | N | Y | CD | CD |
| 5 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 6 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 7 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 8 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| 9 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Total | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 5 |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition? 3. Were the cases consecutive? 4. Were the subjects comparable? 5. Was the intervention clearly described? 6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 7. Was the length of follow-up adequate? 8. Were the statistical methods well-described? 9. Were the results well-described?
CD, cannot determine; N, no; Y, yes.