Skip to main content

Table 3 Study assessment based on quality assessment tool for case control studies

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

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   
  1. Y= Yes, N= No; The maximum possible score on this scale is 12. “Good” was defined as a total score of 8-12; “fair” as a score 5-7, and “poor” as a score of less than 5.