Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of surgical resection, according to the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies point of the supported random stated? to appropriate similar of clearly a sources capture multiple described? described? study at using to clearly and prospectively? blinded reported? in appropriate? reported? study measures the consecutively? of study outcomes? estimates clearly analysis? the enough tests criteria events of the and measured interests collected data assessors follow-up conducted outcome recruited long priori? provide characteristics enter to a the events eligibility adverse cases statistical conclusions in objective study intervention study reported? disease? patients patient outcome outcomes competing relevant the the the the the losses the the the follow-up patients Study ID the results? the Was Was Were Were Were Were Was Were Were Were Were Was Were Were Were Were methods? Did Did established by stated? centres? variability support in intervention? important Kitano et al (2012) • • Renauld et al (2014) ? • Roudriguez-Fuster et ? • al (2014) Reza et al (2009) ? • • Younes et al (2009) ? • • = yes, = no, • = partial, ? = unclear.   Note: The IHE quality appraisal tool was modified to remove two questions that are not applicable to this review. These include: Were additional interventions (co-interventions) clearly described? And, were the relevant outcome measures made before and after the intervention?
Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of surgical resection, 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? Kitano et al (2012) • • Renauld et al (2014) ? • Roudriguez-Fuster et al (2014) ? • Reza et al (2009) ? • • Younes et al (2009) ? • •  = yes,  = no, • = partial, ? = unclear. Note: The IHE quality appraisal tool was modified to remove two questions that are not applicable to this review. These include: Were additional interventions (co-interventions) clearly described? And, were the relevant outcome measures made before and after the intervention?
1403%20-%20Final%20Contracted%20Assessment%20Report%20(ACCESSIBLE).docx