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 |