Skip to main content

Table 1 Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

From: Efficacy and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy for chordomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Criterion

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

Japan

Mizoe 2009 [15]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Imai et 2011 [16]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Imai et 2016 [17]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Koto 2020 [18]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Demizu 2021 [19]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Shiba et 2021 [20]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Aoki 2022 [21]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Italy

Evangelisti 2019 [22]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Iannalfi 2020 [23]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Germany

Uhl 2014 [24]

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Mattke 2023 [25]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

  1. (a) Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series?; (b) Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series?; (c) Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?; (d) Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants?; (e) Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants?; (f) Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study?; (g) Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?; (h) Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported?; (i) Was there clear reporting of the presenting sites’/clinics’ demographic information?; (j) Was statistical analysis appropriate?
Back to article page

Radiation Oncology

ISSN: 1748-717X

Contact us