Table 1 Quality rating of included studies

From: Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature

 

Mahoney (1986)

Tate et al (1989)

Rutgers et al (1991)

Snee (1996)

Hussain et al (1995)

Grunfeld et al (1996)

Lees et al (1997)

Jack et al (1998)

Churn and Kelly (2001)

Grogan et al (2002)

van der Sangen et al (2006)

Montgomery et al (2007a, 2007b)

Is the population under study defined (with inclusion and exclusion criteria)?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is the original cohort of patients from which those with relapse were drawn defined?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Were all those identified as having relapse analysed?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Is loss during follow-up specified?

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Are the main prognostic factors defined (at least age of patient and stage of tumour)?

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes (personal communication)

Yes

Is treatment of first tumour specified (including adjuvant)?

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is mean or median follow-up greater than 5 years?

Not given

No

Not given

Yes

Yes

No

Not given

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is the follow-up schedule (including mammographic interval) specified?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Were methods of diagnosis of relapse prospectively assessed?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Is all relapse, including axillary and new contralateral cancers, included?

Not given

Yes

No

Not given

Not given

Not given

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Percentage of relapses not analysed due to inadequate information

0

0

2%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3%

Total score

5

6

4

6

6

8

3

9

7

9

6

7