Table 4 Quality assessment tool for case-series studies of the studies included in the systematic review.
NIH quality assessment tool for Case Series studies | Effect of cochlear implantations on hearing loss in osteogenesis imperfecta | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Szilvássy et al. (1998)67 | Huang et al. (1998)77 | Migirov et al. (2003)64 | Streubel and Lustig (2005)27 | Rotteveel et al. (2008)53 | Sainz et al. (2009)65 | Heo et al. (2009)78 | Makizumi et al. (2013)66 | Marfatia et al. (2020)54 | Coutinho et al. (2015)68 | Kontorinis et al. (2011)69 | |
1. Was the study question or objective clearly stated? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
2. Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
3. Were the cases consecutive? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
4. Were the subjects comparable? | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
5. Was the intervention clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
6. Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
7. Was the length of follow-up adequate? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
8. Were the statistical methods well-described? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
9. Were the results well-described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
