From: Cryoablation for the treatment of chronic rhinitis: a systematic review
Quality Assessment Criteria | Acceptable | Chang et al. [11] | Gerka Stuyt et al. [10] | Hwang et al. [15] | Yen et al. [16] | Ow et al. [8] | Virani et al. [17] | Yoo et al. [18] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection | ||||||||
Representativeness of exposed cohort | Individuals with chronic rhinitis undergoing ablation | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Drawn from same community as exposed cohort | |||||||
Ascertainment of exposure? | Secured records, structured interview | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study? | Measurement of pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom scores | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Comparability | ||||||||
Study controls for age, sex | Yes | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Study controls for any additional factor | Concurrent medication use | * | * | * | ||||
Outcome | ||||||||
Assessment of outcome | Standardized and validated assessment tool (rTNSS, TNSS, SNOT22) | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Was follow-up long enough for outcome to occur? | Yes, treatment duration > 4 weeks | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts? | All subjects accounted for or small number (< 5%) lost to follow-up or description provided of those lost | * | * | * | * | * | * | |
Overall Quality Score (Maximum = 9) | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | |
Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Fair |