Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality appraisal of eight studies assessing rates of acute kidney injury in first-stage revision arthroplasty involving the use of antibiotic cement spacers

From: Acute kidney injury in the context of staged revision arthroplasty and the use of antibiotic-laden cement spacers: a systematic review

Study

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Total

Aeng [17]

2

2

2

1

0

2

1

0

2

2

2

2

18

Berliner [18]

2

0

2

1

0

2

2

0

NC

NC

NC

NC

9

Dagneaux [19]

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

19

Dagneaux [20]

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

19

Edelstein [21]

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Geller [22]

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

0

2

2

1

2

17

Menge [23]

1

2

2

2

0

2

0

0

2

2

2

2

17

Theil [24]

1

1

2

1

0

2

1

0

NC

NC

NC

NC

8

  1. Methodological items for non-randomized studies for the eight studies included in this systematic review. Comparative studies were assessed using the full 12 question scale; non-comparative (NC) studies were assessed using only the first 8 questions
  2. Q1: A clearly stated aim: the question addressed should be precise and relevant in the light of available literature
  3. Q2: Inclusion of consecutive patients: all patients potentially fit for inclusion (satisfying the criteria for inclusion) have been included in the study during the study period (no exclusion or details about the reasons for exclusion)
  4. Q3: Prospective collection of data: data were collected according to a protocol established before the beginning of the study
  5. Q4: Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study: unambiguous explanation of the criteria used to evaluate the main outcome which should be in accordance with the question addressed by the study. Also, the endpoints should be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis
  6. Q5: Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint: blind evaluation of objective endpoints and double-blind evaluation of subjective endpoints. Otherwise the reasons for not blinding should be stated
  7. Q6: Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study: the follow-up should be sufficiently long to allow the assessment of the main endpoint and possible adverse events
  8. Q7: Loss to follow-up less than 5%: all patients should be included in the follow-up. Otherwise, the proportion lost to follow-up should not exceed the proportion experiencing the major endpoint
  9. Q8: Prospective calculation of the study size: information of the size of detectable difference of interest with a calculation of 95% confidence interval, according to the expected incidence of the outcome event, and information about the level for statistical significance and estimates of power when comparing the outcomes
  10. Q9: An adequate control group: having a gold standard diagnostic test or therapeutic intervention recognized as the optimal intervention according to the available published data
  11. Q10: Contemporary groups: control and studied group should be managed during the same time period (no historical comparison)
  12. Q11: Baseline equivalence of groups: the groups should be similar regarding the criteria other than the studied endpoints. Absence of confounding factors that could bias the interpretation of the results
  13. Q12: Adequate statistical analyses: whether the statistics were in accordance with the type of study with calculation of confidence intervals or relative risk
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X