Methodologische checklijst: systematische heupontwikkeling

Table of quality assessment – prognostic studies

(The criteria used in this checklist are adapted from: Altman DG (2001). Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds.). Systematic reviews in health care. London: BMJ Books; Laupacis A, Wells G, Richardson WS, Tugwell P (1994). Users' guides to the medical literature. How to use an article about prognosis. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA,272:234-7)

Research question: Do idiopathic clubfeet associate with an increased risk of hip dysplasia?

Study reference   (first author, year of publication)	Was there a representative and well-defined sample of patients at a similar point in the course of the disease?   (yes/no/unclear)	Was follow-up sufficiently long and complete?   (yes/no/unclear)	Was the outcome of interest defined and adequately measured?   (yes/no/unclear)	Was the prognostic factor of interest defined and adequately measured?   (yes/no/unclear)	Was loss to follow-up / incomplete outcome data described and acceptable?   (yes/no/unclear)	Was there statistical adjustment for all important prognostic factors?    (yes/no/unclear)	Level of evidence
Canavese 2011	No*1	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	B/C*3
Perry 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No*2	C*2
Paton 2009	No*5	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No*2	C*2
Carney 2006	No*5	Yes	No*4	No*5	No	No*2	C*2
Westberry 2003	No*5	Unclear	No*4	No*5	Unclear	No*2	C*2

*¹ reports on three studies: characteristics in this table concern the retrospective cohort study, severity of clubfoot not stated

*² non-comparative study (only patients with clubfeet included; DDH frequency compared to published data obtained in the general population)

*³ retrospective cohort (level-B), case reports (level-C), review of literature data (level-B)

*⁴ no clear classification of severity DDH

*⁵ severity clubfoot not stated