Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of RFA, according to the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies () of the random stated? to similar of clearly a sources capture multiple described? described? study at to using clearly and blinded prospectively? reported? in appropriate? study measures reported? the consecutively? of study estimates outcomes? analysis? clearly the enough tests criteria of events the and measured interests collected data assessors follow-up conducted outcome recruited priori? long provide characteristics results? methods? enter to a disease? the by events cases eligibility statistical adverse conclusions in objective study intervention study reported? the patients patient outcome outcomes competing the the relevant the the the losses in the the the follow-up patients Study ID the Was Was Were Were Were Were Was Were Were Were Were Was Were Were Were Were Did Did point established appropriate stated? centres? variability supported support intervention? important POPULATION 1 Ambrogi et al (2011) ? ? ? • • Dupuy et al (2015) ? • Hiraki et al (2011) • Lanuti et al (2012) • • • Liu et al (2015) ? • Ridge et al (2014) ? • • Viti et al (2014) • POPULATION 2 de Baere et al (2015) • • ? •
Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of RFA, according to the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies () Study ID Was the objective of the study clearly stated? Was the study conducted prospectively? Were the cases collected in multiple centres? Were patients recruited consecutively? Were patient characteristics described? Were the eligibility criteria clearly stated? Did patients enter the study at a similar point in the disease? Was the intervention clearly described? Were relevant outcome measures established a priori? Were outcome assessors blinded to the intervention? Were outcomes measured using appropriate methods? Were the statistical tests appropriate? Was follow-up long enough to capture important events and outcomes? Were losses to follow-up reported? Did the study provide estimates of random variability in the data analysis? Were the adverse events reported? Were the conclusions of the study supported by results? Were competing interests and sources of support reported? POPULATION 1 Ambrogi et al (2011) ? ? ? • • Dupuy et al (2015) ? • Hiraki et al (2011) • Lanuti et al (2012) • • • Liu et al (2015) ? • Ridge et al (2014) ? • • Viti et al (2014) • POPULATION 2 de Baere et al (2015) • • ? •
1403%20-%20Final%20Contracted%20Assessment%20Report%20(ACCESSIBLE).docx