Appendix A.Quality Assessment using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studieschecklist
Bagla et al.(35)Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable (case report)
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case report (pre+post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Weak
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Chemotherapy between intervention and outcome assessment
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Not applicable (case report)
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Not Applicable
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Cannon et al.(28)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Can’t tell
The following are examples of confounders: / Other treatment between intervention and outcome assessment
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / No
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Cheung et al.(24)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Other intervention between intervention and outcome assessment
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Yes
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / 80-100%
Estimated rating / Strong
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Kasivisvanathan et al.(29)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable (case report)
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case report (pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Weak
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / No
Estimated rating / Strong
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Yes
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / No
Kingham et al.(25)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Chemotherapy pre + post-intervention
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / No
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / 60-79%
Estimated rating / Moderate
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Martin et al.(21)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Concurrent procedures, radiochemotherapy
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Yes
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / 80-100%
Estimated rating / Strong
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Martin et al.(22)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case-control
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Can’t tell
The following are examples of confounders: / Health status
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / 60-79%
Estimated rating / Moderate
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / No
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / 80-100%
Estimated rating / Moderate
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Narayanan et al.(34)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Health status, chemoradiation
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes (only patients with follow-up results >3 months included in efficacy analysis)
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Yes
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / 80-100%
Estimated rating / Strong
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Yes
Narayanan et al.(30)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort analytic (two group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Pain sensitive tumor location; complications
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Moderate
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Not applicable
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / Can’t tell
Niessen et al.(31)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case report (pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Weak
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / No
Estimated rating / Strong
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Not applicable
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / No
Niessen et al.(32)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable (case report)
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case report (pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Weak
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / No
Estimated rating / Strong
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Not applicable
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / No
Niessen et al.(33)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Somewhat likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Moderate
Study design / Indicate study design / Case report (pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Weak
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / No
Estimated rating / Strong
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes
Were the study participants aware of the research question? / Yes
Estimated rating / Weak
Data collection methods / Were data collection tools shown to be valid? / Yes
Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? / Yes
Estimated rating / Strong
Withdrawals and drop-outs / Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group? / Not applicable
Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study / Not applicable
Estimated rating / Not applicable
Intervention integrity / What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest? / 80-100%
Was the consistency of the intervention measured? / Yes
Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results? / No
Pech et al.(27)
Selection bias / Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population? / Not likely
What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate? / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Study design / Indicate study design / Cohort (one group pre + post)
Was the study described as randomized? / No
Estimated rating / Moderate
Confounders / Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention? / Yes
The following are examples of confounders: / Additional nephrectomy
Indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled: / Can’t tell
Estimated rating / Weak
Blinding / Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of the participants? / Yes