Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of the quality of studies included in qualitative and quantitative analyses

From: Statin use is associated with the reduction in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver surgery

Authors

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Score a

Yang [26]

2

1

0

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

17

Young [27]

2

2

0

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

17

Cho [23]

2

2

0

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

17

Nishio [28]

2

1

0

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

16

Kawaguchi [20]

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

19

Wu LL [22]

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

0

2

0

2

2

16

Lee [29]

2

1

0

2

1

2

1

0

2

0

2

2

15

Yeh [30]

2

1

0

2

1

2

2

0

2

0

1

2

15

Wu Cy [31]

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

0

2

0

2

2

16

  1. Q1. A clearly stated aim Q2. Inclusion of consecutive patients Q3. Prospective collection of data Q4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study Q5. Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint Q6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study Q7. Loss to follow up less than 5% Q8. Prospective calculation of the study size Q9. An adequate control group Q10. Contemporary groups Q11. Baseline equivalence of groups Q12. Adequate statistical analyses
  2. a The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The best total score is 16 for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us