Table 4.
Studies appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case report.
| Were Patient’s Demographic Characteristics Clearly Described? | Was the Patient’s History Clearly Described and Presented as a Timeline? | Was the Current Clinical Condition of the Patient on Presentation Clearly Described? | Were Diagnostic Tests or Methods and the Results Clearly Described? | Was the Intervention(s) or Treatment Procedure(s) Clearly Described? | Was the Post-Intervention Clinical Condition Clearly Described? | Were Adverse Events (Harms) or Unanticipated Events Identified and Described? | Does the Case Report Provide Takeaway Lessons? | Score Out of 8 (100%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowe et al., 2020 [60] | U | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 4 (50%) |
| Lang et al., 2020 [62] | U | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Bastug et al., 2020 [63] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Chu et al., 2020 [64] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Feng et al., 2020 [65] | U | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 4 (50%) |
| Perrone et al., 2020 [66] | U | N | N | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 2 (25%) |
| Li et al., 2020 [67] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Yu et al., 2020 [68] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Tam et al., 2021 [69] | N | N | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 3 (37.5%) |
| Phadke et al., 2020 [70] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Kirtsman et al., 2020 [71] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Hinojosa el al., 2020 [72] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | 6 (75%) |
| Wang et al., 2020 [73] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | Y | Y | 6 (75%) |
| Le et al., 2020 [79] | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | NA | N | Y | 5 (62.5%) |
| Dong et al., 2020 [82] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 7 (87.5%) |