Open Access
Table IV
Methodological quality appraisal of included studies.
| Abraham | Akhtar | Alizadeh | Avner | Bernardo 1998 | Bernardo 2000 | Bernardo 2002 | Chen 2013 | Chiam | Daniels | Dwyer | Eppley | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Was the study question or objective clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2 | Was the sample representative of the target population? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3 | Was the study population and setting clearly and fully described, including a case definition? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| 4 | Were the risk factors clearly described? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| 5 | Were objective criteria used for the measurement of the injury? | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 6 | Was there appropriate statistical analysis? | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N |
| 7 | Are all important confounding factors/subgroups/differences identified and accounted for? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Total Score | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Fien | Garvey | Greenhalgh | Kasbekar | Kaye | Kahn | Lang | Mcguire | Mcheik | Mitchell | Monroy | Reisner | Schalamon | Speirs | Sribnick | Van As AB | Wu | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Was the study question or objective clearly stated? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | y |
| 2 | Was the sample representative of the target population? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3 | Was the study population and setting clearly and fully described, including a case definition? | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | y |
| 4 | Were the risk factors clearly described? | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | N |
| 5 | Were objective criteria used for the measurement of the injury? | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N |
| 6 | Was there appropriate statistical analysis? | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | y |
| 7 | Are all important confounding factors/subgroups/differences identified and accounted for? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Total | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.