Prognostic Value of MUC2 Expression in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 2
Quality assessment of the included studies.
First author, year
Selection
Comparability
Outcome
Representativeness of exposed cohort ★
Selection of nonexposed cohort ★
Ascertainment of exposure ★
No primary outcome was present at the start of study ★
Comparable on confounder ★★
Outcome assessment ★
Adequate follow-up ★
Loss to follow-up ★
Total score
Adams et al., 2009
★
★
★
★★
★
★
7
Betge et al., 2016
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
8
Elzagheid et al., 2013
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Imai et al., 2013
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Kang et al., 2011
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
7
Khanh et al., 2013
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Lu et al., 2014
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Perez et al., 2008
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
7
Wang et al., 2017
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Yu et al., 2007
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
Zwenger et al., 2014
★
★
★
★★
★
★
★
8
“Selection” part includes representativeness of cases, selection of controls, exposure ascertainment, and no death when investigation begins. “Comparability” part includes comparable on confounders. “Outcome” part includes outcome assessment, adequate follow-up, and loss to follow-up rate. ★ represents score of 1. ★★ represents score of 2.