Journal of Oral Diseases

Review Article

Malignant Transformation Rate in Patients Presenting Oral Epithelial Dysplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 3

Risk assessment of individual studies.
First authorCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteriaCriteria
1234567891011121314
Bánóczy (1976) [13]++++−+++++++++
Mincer (1972) [17]++++−+++++++++
Gupta (1980) [7]++++−NR−++++NR++
Lumerman (1995) [18]++++−+++++++++
Cowan (2001) [12]++++−++++++−++
Holmstrup (2006) [11]++++−++++++−++
Hsue (2007) [8]++++−NR+++++NR++
Ho (2009) [9]++++−+++++++++
Arduino (2009) [16]++++−+++++++++
Bradley (2010) [21]++++−+++++++++
Liu (2011) [10]++++−+++++++++
Warnakulasuriya (2011) [15]++++−+++++++++
Zhang (2012) [22]++++−++++++−++
Ho (2012) [14]++++−++++++−++
Sperandio (2013) [19]++++−+++++++++
Dost (2014) [20]++++−++++++−+−
NR: not reported.
1Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?
2Was the study population clearly specified and defined?
3Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?
4Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants?
5Were a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?
6For the analyses in this paper, was the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?
7Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?
8For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome?
9Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
10Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?
11Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
12Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?
13Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?
14Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?