Table 1 Evaluation criteria used to assess the quality of studies included in the meta-analysis of the five most often reported biomarkers (adapted from REMARK guidelines)
From: Prognostic biomarkers for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Checklist | Criteria |
|---|---|
1- Samples | Cohort (Retrospective or Prospective) study with a well-defined study population |
Medical treatment applied to the patients was explained. Authors have explained if all patients have received the same treatment or not | |
2- Clinical data of the cohort | The basic clinical data such as age, gender, clinical stage and histopathologic grade was provided |
3- Immunohistochemistry | Well-described staining protocol or referred to original paper |
4- Prognostication | The analysed survival endpoints were defined (e.g., overall survival, disease-free survival) |
5- Statistics | Cutoff point, which used to divide the cases into risk groups was well described |
Estimated effect (CI, HR) describing the relationship between the evaluated biomarker and the outcome was provided | |
Adequate statistical analysis (e.g., Cox regression modelling) was performed to adjust the estimation of the effect of the biomarker for known prognostic factors | |
6- Classical prognostic factors | The prognostic value of the classical prognostic factors was reported |
The relationship between the evaluated biomarker/s and classical prognostic factors were reported |
