Table 4 Evaluation of methodological qualities of observational included studies
From: Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review
Items/author* | [[15]] | [[16]] | [[17]] | [[18]] | [[24]] | [[26]] | [[27]] | [[28]] | [[29]] | [[30]] | [[31]] | [[32]] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case series collected in more than one centre, i.e. multi-centre study | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Are the inclusion andexclusion criteria (case definition) clearly reported? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Is there a clear definition of the outcomes reported? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Were data collected prospectively? | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Is there an explicit statement that patients were recruited consecutively? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Are the main findings of the study clearly described? | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Are outcomes stratified? (e.g., by disease stage, abnormal test results, patient characteristics) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Total Score | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 1 |