Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Dosimetry study of three-dimensional print template for 125I implantation therapy

First author and year

Representativenessa

Selection of non-exposed b

Ascertainment of exposurec

Incident diseased

Comparabilitye

Assessment of outcomef

Length of follow-upg

Adequacy of follow-uph

Hongtao [12] 2016

A

A

A

A

C

B

A

A

Han [13] 2017

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

Huang [14] 2018

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

Cao [15] 2017

A

A

A

A

C

B

A

A

Pan [16] 2018

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

Shen [17] 2018

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

Zheng [18] 2019

A

A

A

A

C

B

A

A

Di [19] 2017

A

A

A

A

C

B

A

A

Ji [20] 2017

A

N.A

A

A

N.A

B

A

A

Wang [21] 2016

A

N.A

A

A

N.A

B

A

A

Yuliang[22] 2016

A

N.A

A

A

N.A

B

A

A

Jiang [23] 2017

A

N.A

A

A

N.A

B

A

A

Zhe [24] 2017

A

N.A

A

A

N.A

B

A

A

Ji [25] 2019

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

Ang [26] 2019

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

Xuemin [27] 2018

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

  1. aA truly representative, B somewhat representative, C selected group, D no description of the derivation of the cohort
  2. bA drawn from the same community as the exposed, B drawn from a different source, C no description of the derivation of the non-exposed
  3. cA secure record, B structured interview, C written self-report, D no description
  4. dDemonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at start of study: A yes, B no
  5. eA study controls for demographics/comorbidities, B study controls for any additional factor (e.g., age, severity of illness), C not done
  6. fA independent or blind assessment, B record linkage, C self-report, D no description
  7. gLong enough for outcomes to occur? A yes, B no
  8. hA complete follow-up, B subjects lost to follow-up was unlikely to introduce bias, C follow-up rate 90% or lower, D no statement