Skip to main content

Table 3 Evaluation of methodological qualities of comparative included studies

From: Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review

Items/author* [[7]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[8]] [[23]] [[25]] [[33]] [[34]]
Inclusion criteria 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Exclusion criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Comparable demographics? 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Could the number of participating centres be determined? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Could the number of surgeons who participated be determined? 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
Could the reader determine where the authors were on the learning curve for the reported procedure? 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Were diagnostic criteria clearly stated for clinical outcomes if required? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Was the surgical technique adequately described? 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Did they try to standardize the surgical technique? 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Did they try to standardize perioperative care? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Was the age and range given for patients in the Robotic group? 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Did the authors address whether there were any missing data? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Was the age and range given for patients in the comparative group? 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Were patients in each group treated along similar timelines? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
The patients asking to enter the study, did they actually take part to it? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Were drop-out rates stated? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Were outcomes clearly defined? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Were there blind assessors? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Were there standardized assessment tools? 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Was the analysis by intention to treat? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Score 12 9 10 9 10 10 7 12 15 9
  1. Total score, 21; <8, poor quality; 8–14, fair quality; ≥15, good quality.
  2. * Named by reference number and listed in chronological order.