Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 21, 2022; 10(3): 939-953
Published online Jan 21, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i3.939
Table 2 Quality evaluation and the evidence level for each study
Ref.
Question described
Appropriate study design
Appropriate subject selection
Characteristics described
Random allocation
Investigators blinded
Subjects blinded
Outcome and measures well defined and robust to bias
Sample size appropriate
Analytic methods appropriate
Estimate of variance reported
Controlled for confounding
Results reported in detail
Conclusion supported by results?
Rating
Levels of evidence
Glotzer et al[19], 200322222NA22222222S1b
Capucci et al[7], 200522110NA02222222M2b
Botto et al[20], 200922220NA02222122S2b
Glotzer et al[21], 200922120NA02222122M2b
Healey et al[8], 201222221NA22222222S2b
Shanmugam et al[22], 201222120NA02222222S2b
Gonzalez et al[23], 201422110NA02122222M2b
Boriani et al[24], 201422120NA02222222S2b
Turakhia et al[25], 201522220NA02222222S3a
Witt et al[26], 201522220NA02222222S2b
Benezet-Mazuecos et al[27],22220NA02122222S2b
Van Gelder et al[28], 201722221NA22222222S2b
Chu et al[29], 202022110NA02122222M2b
Kaplan et al[30],22220NA02222222S2b
Li et al[31], 201922220NA02222122S2b
Nakano et al[32], 201922220NA02222122S2b
The quantitative assessment tool ‘QualSyst’ and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 Level of Evidence Tool were used to access the methodological quality and the evidence levels. NA: Not applicable; 2 indicates yes, 1 indicates partial, 0 indicates no. Quality scores: ≥ 75% strong (S), 55%-75% moderate (M), ≤ 55% weak (W).