Table 1.
Results of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist
| JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for case reports | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | |||
| Springer and Chollet 2001 | Unclear | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Unclear | Yes | |||
| Tanriverdi et al. 2010 | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | |||
| Bhagia et al. 2010 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | |||
| Devesa et al. 2015 |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
|||
| 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? | |||||||||||
| JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series | |||||||||||
| Author, year |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q7 |
Q8 |
Q9 |
Q10 |
|
| Maric et al. 2010 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
|
| Devesa et al. 2015 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
|
| Q1: Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series? Q2: Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series? Q3. Were valid methods used for identification the condition for all participants included in the case series? Q4: Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants? Q5: Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants? Q6: Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study? Q7: Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants? Q8: Were the outcomes or follow up results of cases clearly reported? Q9: Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information? Q10: Was statistical analysis appropriate? | |||||||||||
| JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for cohort studies | |||||||||||
| Author, year |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q7 |
Q8 |
Q9 |
Q10 |
Q11 |
| Reimunde et al. 2011 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
| Moreau et al. 2013 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
| Mossberg et al. 2017 |
No appl. |
No appl. |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
| Q1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? Q2: Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? Q3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? Q4: Were confounding factors identified? Q5: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? Q6: Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? Q7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? Q8: Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? Q9: Was follow-up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored? Q10: Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized? Q11: Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | |||||||||||
| The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case reports and case series and for cohort studies was used to assess the quality of the studies included in the analysis. | |||||||||||