Skip to main content

Table 2 Study assessment based on quality assessment tool for case series studies

From: Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Criteria

2020 Nessler

et al.

2020 Laende

et al.

2020 Favreau

et al.

2020

Dubin

(Arthroplasty Today)

et al.

2020

de l’Escalopier

et al.

2020 Colacchio

et al.

2020 Civinini

et al.

2020

Ait Mokhtar

et al

2019 Tabori-jensen

et al.

   

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

3. Were the cases consecutive?

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

   

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

   

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

   

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

Quality of the cohort study (score)

7

8

7

7

8

7

7

7

8

   

Criteria

2019 Schmidt-braekling

et al.

2019

Neil Wheelton

et al.

2019 Nam

et al.

2019 Markel

et al.

2019 Jones

et al.

2019 Huang

et al.

2019 Gaillard

et al.

2019 Fessy

et al.

2019 Dikmen

et al.

2019 Cypres

et al.

2019 Chalmers

et al.

 

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

3. Were the cases consecutive?

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

 

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Quality of the cohort study (score)

8

6

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

7

7

 

Criteria

2019 Canton

et al.

2019 Boulat

et al.

2019

Assi

(J Arthroplasty)

et al.

2019

Assi

(Hip Int.)

et al.

2019 Addona

et al.

2018 Rashed

et al.

2018 Ozden

et al.

2018 Marie-hardy

et al.

2018 Lange

et al.

2018 Kavcicet al.

2018 Kasparek

et al.

 

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

3. Were the cases consecutive?

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

 

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

 

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Quality of the cohort study (score)

7

7

7

7

6

6

8

7

7

8

7

 

Criteria

2018 Hwang

et al.

2018 Diamond

et al.

2018 Chalmers

et al.

2018 Assi

et al.

2017 Viste

et al.

2017 Sutter

et al.

2017

Puch

et al.

2017 Nam

et al.

2017 Martz

et al.

2017 Lebeau

et al.

2017 Henawy

et al.

2017 Hamadouche

et al.

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

3. Were the cases consecutive?

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Quality of the cohort study (score)

6

8

6

7

8

8

8

6

7

7

6

7

Criteria

2017 Graversen

et al.

2017 Ferreira

et al.

2017 Epinette

et al.

2016 Nich

et al.

2016 Morin

et al.

2016 Chughtai

et al.

2016 Carulli

et al.

2015 Wegrzyn

et al.

2015 Vigdorchik

et al.

2015 Vermersch

et al.

2015

van Heumen

et al.

 

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

3. Were the cases consecutive?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

 

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

 

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Quality of the cohort study (score)

6

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

7

8

8

 

Criteria

2015 Snir

et al.

2015 Simian

et al.

2015 Mohammed

et al.

2014 Wegrzyn

et al.

2014 Prudhon

et al.

2014 Jakobsen

et al.

2013 Saragaglia

et al.

2013 Sanders

et al.

2013 Prudhon

et al.

2012 Vasukutty

et al.

2012 Pattyn

et al.

 

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

3. Were the cases consecutive?

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

 

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

 

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

 

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 

Quality of the cohort study (score)

6

7

5

7

8

8

6

8

8

8

5

 

Criteria

2012 Hamadouche

et al.

2012 Hailer

et al.

2012 Civinini

et al.

2012 Adam

et al.

2011 Schneider

et al.

2010 Hamadouche

et al.

2009 Guyen

et al.

2008 Langlais

et al.

2008 Bauchu

et al.

   

1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

3. Were the cases consecutive?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

   

4. Were the subjects comparable?

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

   

5. Was the intervention clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

7. Was the length of follow-up adequate?

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

8. Were the statistical methods well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

   

9. Were the results well-described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

   

Quality of the cohort study (score)

7

7

7

6

7

7

7

7

7

   
  1. Y= Yes, N= No; The maximum possible score on this scale is 9. “Good” was defined as a total score of 7-9; “fair” as a score 4-6, and “poor” as a score of less than 4.