|
Selection bias
| | | |
|
Selection
| | | |
|
Any criteria descriptions for the patients
|
Any different radiotherapy plan,tumor stage,local recurrence,distant metastasis,follow duration etc.
|
Not mentioned
| |
|
The representativeness of the postoperative radiotherapy group
|
truly representative of the average, elderly, community-dwelling resident
|
somewhat or selected group of patients, e.g. only certain socio-economic groups/areas
|
no description of the derivation of the cohort
|
|
The representativeness of the surgery only group
|
drawn from the same community as the intervention cohort
|
drawn from a different source
|
no description of the derivation of the non intervention cohort
|
|
Comparability
| | | |
|
Group comparable for:a.average age b.negative margin c patinet status
|
All the three variables were comparable between the groups
|
at least one of these was not reported even if others were comparable
|
Not mentioned
|
|
Group comparable for:a.tumor stite b.radiotherapy plan c.tumor stage
|
All the three variables were comparable between the groups
|
At least one of those was not comparable even if others were not reported
|
Not mentioned
|
|
Control for confounding at each outcome
|
Appropriate methods are used to control the potential confounders (e.g. matching, modeling, etc.)
|
No method was applied to control the potential confounders
|
Insufficient description
|
|
Design or Analysis bias
| | | |
|
Blinding of participants at each outcome
|
1.Blinding of participants at each outcome
|
1. No blinding or incomplete blinding, the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
|
Insufficient description
|
|
2.No blinding or incomplete blinding, but the reviewers judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
|
2. Blinding of key study participants and likely that the blinding could been broken, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
|
|
3. Blinding of key study participants and unlikely that the blinding could been broken
|
|
Ascertainment of intervention exposure
|
Medical records or structured interview
|
Written self report
|
Insufficient description
|
|
Outcomes
| | | |
|
Blinding of outcome assessment at each outcome
|
1. Blinding of outcome assessment at each outcome
|
1. No blinding of outcome assessment, the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
|
Insufficient description
|
|
2. No blinding of outcome assessment, but the reviewers judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
|
|
2. Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and likely that the blinding could have been broken and the outcome assessment is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
|
|
3. Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
|
|
Ascertainment of outcome data
|
Record linkage
|
Self report
|
Insufficient description
|
|
Was follow up long enough for outcomes to occur
|
The follow-up was long enough for outcomes to occur, if median duration of follow-up > = 6 month
|
if median duration of follow-up < 6 months
|
Insufficient description
|
|
Adequacy of follow up of cohorts
|
1. complete follow up: all subjects accounted for
|
follow up rate < 80 % (select an adequate %) and no description of those lost
|
Insufficient description
|
|
2. subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias: number lost < = 20 %, or description of those lost suggesting no different from those followed
|
