Table 7 Quality assessment of included articles: Case series: (1) Was the study question or objective clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition? (3) Were the cases consecutive? (4) Were the subjects comparable? (5) Was the intervention clearly described? (6) Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (7) Was the length of follow-up adequate? (8) Were the statistical methods well-described? (9) Were the results well-described?
From: Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review
NIH quality assessment tool for case series studies | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Study type | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Rating |
Mangano et al. [40] | Case series | * | * | o | * | * | * | * | * | * | Good |
Chamorro Pons et al. [41] | Case series | * | * | * | * | * | – | – | – | * | Fair |
Cebrián et al. [29] | Case series | * | * | – | * | * | – | – | – | * | Fair |
Dimitroulis et al. [44] | Case series multicenter study | * | * | – | * | * | * | * | – | * | Good |
Gellrich et al. [45] | Case series | – | * | – | – | – | * | – | – | * | Poor |
Korn et al. [46] | Case series | – | * | – | – | – | * | – | – | * | Poor |
Rahlf et al. [47] | Case series | * | * | – | – | – | * | * | – | * | Fair |
Korn et al. [48] | Case series | * | * | – | * | – | * | * | – | – | Fair |