Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Review Article

Prognostic Value of MUC2 Expression in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 2

Quality assessment of the included studies.
First author, yearSelectionComparabilityOutcome
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.