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.