Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 5;29(12):7209–7223. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06398-0

Table 3.

Evaluation of methodological quality according to the design of the study (n = 11)

Study Methodological quality assessed Total (% score yes) Methodological quality
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
Barca I (2020) Y N Y Y Y U Y Y 75% High
Kang JJ, et al. (2020) N N N Y Y Y Y Y 62,50% Moderate
Lee AKF (2020) Y N Y Y Y N Y Y 75% High
Shanti RM et al. (2020) N N Y U Y N N Y 37,50% Low
Al-Maweri SA (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Alves FA (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Crispo A et al. (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Kanatas A (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Kochhar AS (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Lopes MA (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High
Meurer MI (2020) Y Y Y Y Y N 83,33% High

Note: For Case Reports — (Q1) Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? (Q2) Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? (Q3) Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? (Q4) Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? (Q5) Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? (Q6) Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? (Q7) Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? (Q8) Does the case report provide takeaway lessons?

For Text and Opinion — (Q1) Is the source of the opinion clearly identified? (Q2) Does the source of opinion have standing in the field of expertise? (Q3) Are the interests of the relevant population the central focus of the opinion? (Q4) Is the stated position the result of an analytical process, and is there logic in the opinion expressed? (Q5) Is there reference to the extant literature? (Q6) Is any incongruence with the literature/sources logically defended?

Abbreviations: N, no; U, unclear; Y, yes