Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of MTA, 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? reported? study measures the consecutively? of study estimates outcomes? analysis? clearly the enough tests criteria of events the and measured collected data interests assessors follow-up conducted outcome recruited long priori? provide characteristics results? methods? enter to a the disease? by events eligibility adverse cases statistical conclusions in objective study intervention study reported? the patients patient outcome outcomes competing relevant the the the the the losses in the the the follow-up patients the Study ID 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 Han et al (2015) ? ? ? Liu & Steinke (2015) ? • Yang et al (2014) ? • ? POPULATION 2 Qi et al (2015) ? • Vogl et al (2015) ? • POPULATION 3 Ni et al (2015) ?
Table Quality appraisal of included case series investigations of MTA, 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 Han et al (2015) ? ? ? Liu & Steinke (2015) ? • Yang et al (2014) ? • ? POPULATION 2 Qi et al (2015) ? • Vogl et al (2015) ? • POPULATION 3 Ni et al (2015) ?
1403%20-%20Final%20Contracted%20Assessment%20Report%20(ACCESSIBLE).docx