Skip to main content

Table 4 Evaluation of methodological qualities of observational included studies

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

Items/author* [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[24]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]]
Case series collected in more than one centre, i.e. multi-centre study 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Are the inclusion andexclusion criteria (case definition) clearly reported? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Is there a clear definition of the outcomes reported? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Were data collected prospectively? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Is there an explicit statement that patients were recruited consecutively? 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Are the main findings of the study clearly described? 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Are outcomes stratified? (e.g., by disease stage, abnormal test results, patient characteristics) 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Total Score 3 5 7 6 6 4 6 5 7 5 4 1
  1. Yes = 1 No(not reported, not available) = 0.
  2. Total score, 8; ≤3, poor quality; 4–6, fair quality; ≥7, good quality.
  3. * Named by reference number and listed in chronological order.