Table 3.
Methodological analysis of the included studies.
| Study | 1. Were the two groups similar? | 2. Were the exposures measured similarly to both groups? | 3. Was the exposure measured reliably? | 4. Were confounding factors identified? | 5. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? |
6. Were the groups/ participants free of the outcome at the beginning? |
7. Were the outcomes measured reliably? |
8. Was the follow up time reported and long enough? |
9. Was follow up complete? |
10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized? | 11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MACROSCOPIC HEMODYNAMIC STUDIES | ||||||||||||
| Jinnai et al. (19) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 10/10 = 100% |
| Wu et al. (20) | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Buckley et al. (21) | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | ? | – | + | 7/11 = 63% |
| Nakamura et al. (22) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | NA | ? | 6/10 = 60% |
| Wang et al. (23) | ? | + | ? | – | NA | + | ? | + | – | NA | + | 4/9 = 44% |
| Chakkarapani et al. (24) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | ? | – | + | NA | + | 6/9 = 67% |
| Manole et al. (25) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Leffler et al. (46) | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 6/10 = 60% |
| Rosenberg et al. (27) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 7/9 = 78% |
| Rosenberg et al. (28) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | ? | 6/9 = 67% |
| MICROSCOPIC HEMODYNAMIC STUDIES | ||||||||||||
| Shaik et al. (29) | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Domoki et al. (30) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 9/10 = 90% |
| ENDOGENOUS STUDIES—NMDA/MAPK | ||||||||||||
| Armstead et al. (32) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Kiessling et al. (33) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 7/9 = 78% |
| Armstead et al. (34) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Bari et al. (35) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Philip et al. (36) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 7/9 = 78% |
| Jagolino et al. (37) | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | ? | + | NA | + | 7/10 = 70% |
| Armstead et al. (39) | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Taylor et al. (40) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 9/10 = 90% |
| ENDOGENOUS STUDIES—NO | ||||||||||||
| Hsu et al. (14) | – | ? | + | – | NA | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 6/9 = 67% |
| Domoki et al. (41) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | ? | + | NA | + | 7/9 = 78% |
| Dorrepaal et al. (42) | ? | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 6/9 = 67% |
| Wilderman et al. (15) | – | ? | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 6/10 = 60% |
| Armstead et al. (16) | – | ? | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 5/9 = 56% |
| ENDOGENOUS STUDIES—PROSTANOID | ||||||||||||
| Taniguchi et al. (17) | – | ? | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 7/10 = 70% |
| Pourcyrous et al. (43) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 9/10 = 90% |
| Leffler et al. (46) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | ? | 6/9 = 67% |
| Leffler et al. (18) | – | ? | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 5/9 = 56% |
| ENDOGENOUS STUDIES—OTHER | ||||||||||||
| Parfenova et al. (44) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | NA | + | 10/10 = 100% |
| Dang et al. (31) | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Perciaccante et al. (38) | ? | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 7/10 = 70% |
| Wilderman et al. (45) | + | ? | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 8/10 = 80% |
| Rosenberg et al. (28) | + | + | + | – | NA | + | + | – | + | NA | + | 7/9 = 78% |
+ Yes, – No, ? Unclear, NA Not Applicable.
The subsequent following items were assessed: (1). Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? (2). Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? (3). Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? (4). Were confounding factors identified? (5). Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? (6). Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? (7). Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? (8). Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? (9). Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored? (10). Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized? (11). Was appropriate statistical analysis used?