Roel Bogie

Chapter 6

Table 6.3: Quality assessment of included studies (according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale).

Selection

Comparability Outcome

Total score

Representativeness exposed cohort Selection of

nonexposed cohort

Ascertainment of cohort

Demonstration outcome not

present at start

Assessment of outcome

Follow-up long enough

Adequacy of follow up

Albuquerque, 2013 Brooker, 2002 Kandel, 2019

/

*

*

*

*

*

*

* 7*

* * * * / * / * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * / * * * *

*

* * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * *

* 8* * 9*

** **

Katsinelos, 2019 Klein, 2019 Park, 2019 Raju, 2020

/

8*

**

* 9*

*

/

5*

NA *

NA

* 6* (9*)

Shahidi, 2020 Shahidi, 2021 Sidhu, 2021

* *

* *

**

* 8* * 7*

/

NA *

NA

* 6* (9*)

Representativeness of exposed cohort: no selection based on location, size, or complexity of lesions. Selection of nonexposed cohort: controls derived from same population as exposed group, no reasons to believe that nonexposed cohort did not receive exposure for specific reasons (e.g. other resection technique, inexperienced endoscopist). Ascertainment of cohort: adjuvant treatment methods were described and applied fully and correctly. Demonstration outcome not present at start: description of no visible residue present at first resection. Comparability: study controls for exposure vs non-exposure and baseline characteristics, and both cohorts are samples of the same general population. Assessment of outcome: definition of recurrence has to be described and documented. Follow-up long enough: minimal follow-up period of 6 months. Adequacy of follow-up: loss-to-follow-up is described and <15% loss-to-follow-up Is acceptable/ Maximum score comparability = 2 stars; maximum total score = 9 stars/ Abbreviations: * = star / points; / = no point; NA = not applicable/

118