Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias evaluation of the involved case series studies

From: Efficacy and safety of proton radiotherapy in treating choroidal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Criterion

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

Eric Tran 2012 [37]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial report

No

No

Kim TW 2018 [33]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial report

No

No

Papakostas TD 2017 [35]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Bensoussan E 2016 [36]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial report

No

No

Fuss M 2001 [38]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Carlo Mosci 2012 [34]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

  1. (a) Did the case series clearly state the hypothesis, goals, and objectives of the study? (b) Did the case series describe patient characteristics? (c) Did the case series collect cases at multiple centers? (d) Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this case series study clear and reasonable? (e) Did the participants in the case series join in succession? (f) Were the conditions of the patients in this case series study consistent? (g) Did the case series clearly describe the primary intervention? (h) Did the case series explicitly describe the combined intervention? (i) Did the case series identify a priori the outcomes to be measured by the study? (j) Did the case series apply reasonable objective and/or subjective methods to measure the relevant outcome indicators? (k) Were the outcome indicators measured before and after the intervention in this case series? (l) Was the statistical analysis appropriate? (m) Did the case series report the duration of follow-up? (n) Did the case series report missed visits? (o) Did the case series provide random variable estimates in the data analysis of the relevant outcome indicator? (p) Were intervention-related adverse events reported in this case series? (q) Did the results of this case series study support its conclusions? (r) Did the case series indicate a conflict of interest and source of support for the study? (s) Was this case series a prospective study? (t) Were the case series outcome evaluators blinded?