Table 3 Study assessment based on quality assessment tool for case control studies
Criteria | 2020 Tabori-jensen et al. | 2020 Schmidt et al. | 2020 Rashed et al. | 2020 Klemt et al | 2020 Hoggett et al. | 2020 Dubin et al. | 2020 Abdel et al | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | |
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | |
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | |
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | |
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 10 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | |
Criteria | 2019 Ukaj et al. | 2019 Nonne et al. | 2019 Li et al. | 2019 Kreipke et al. | 2019 Jobory et al. | 2019 Iorio et al. | 2019 Fahad et al. | 2019 Dubin et al. |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N |
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N |
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 10 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
Criteria | 2019 Bloemheuvel, van Steenbergen et al. | 2019 Bloemheuvel, Steenbergen et al. | 2019 Assi (Int Orthop) et al. | 2018 Tabori-Jensen et al. | 2018 Stucinskas et al. | 2018 Spaans et al. | 2018 Perrin et al. | 2018 Kim et al. |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 |
Criteria | 2018 Harwin et al. | 2018 Hartzler et al. | 2018 Boukebous et al. | 2017 Tarasevicius et al. | 2017 Rowan et al. | 2017 Ochi et al. | 2017 Hernigou et al. | 2017 Gonzalez et al. |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N |
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N |
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
Criteria | 2017 Chalmers et al. | 2017 Batailler et al. | 2016 Jauregui et al. | 2016 Homma et al. | 2016 Haughom et al. | 2016 Griffin et al. | 2015 Epinette et al. | 2015 Bel et al. |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N |
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | Y |
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N |
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 |
Criteria | 2014 Epinette et al. | 2014 Caton et al. | 2014 Bensen et al. | 2013 Tarasevicius et al. | 2011 Bouchet et al. | 2010 Tarasevicius et al. | ||
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? | N | N | N | Y | N | N | ||
4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? | N | N | N | N | N | N | ||
8. Was there use of concurrent controls? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | ||
9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? | N | N | N | N | N | N | ||
12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? | N | N | N | N | N | N | ||
Quality of the cohort study (score) | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 |