128 / 264
TABLE I.
Study Assessment of Studies Comparing Recurrence Rates Between the CWU Technique and the CWD Technique.
Author
(publication year)
Design No.
Domain
Outcome
Rel.
Selection Bias
Information bias
Confounding
Val.
Age*
Acquired First
Baseline
Charact.
Recurrent/
Residual
Disease*
FU Duration*
Loss
to FU*
Missing
Data*
Standardization
Determinant
Standardization
Outcome
Confounding
by Indication*
Palmgren (1979)
20
RCS 347 –
?
?
–
6
1
M
1
–
6
6
–
M
Brown (1982)
6
RCS 1142 –
?
?
6
6
1
M –
–
1
–
–
L
Roden (1996)
18
RCS 97
1
?
–
6
1
–
M –
6
–
6
6
L
Nyrop (1997)
7
RCS 85 –
1
?
6
6
6
M
6
–
6
1
1
M
Ajalloueyan (2006)
19
RCS 108 –
?
?
1
6
1
M –
–
1
–
6
L
Stankovic (2007)
15
PCS 758 –
?
?
6
1
6
M
1 1
6
–
6
M
Declerck (2010)
4
RCS 161
1 1
?
6
1
6
H –
6
–
1
–
L
Charachon (1980)
17
RCS 211
–
?
?
6
–
1
L
1
–
6
6
–
M
*Priority items.
Legend: charact.
5
characteristics; CWU
5
canal wall up; CWD
5
canal wall down; FU
5
follow-up; H
5
high; L
5
low; M
5
moderate; No.
5
number of patients; PCS
5
prospective cohort study; RCS
5
retrospective cohort study; Rel.
5
relevance; Val.
5
validity.
Domain
Age:
1 5
only adults ( 18 years old) included; –
5
also adolescents (14–17 years old) included. Acquired:
1 5
only acquired cholesteatoma mentioned; –
5
acquired and congenital; ?
5
not reported.
First:
1 5
primary surgery only; –
5
reoperations included; ?
5
not reported. Baseline characteristics:
1 5
complete and equally distributed;
6 5
incomplete or unequally distributed; –
5
absent.
Outcome
Recurrent/residual disease:
1 5
reported separately;
6 5
combined data; –
5
only data of residual disease. Follow-up duration:
1 5
>
5 years;
6 5
2
2
5 years; –
5
<
2 years.
Selection Bias
Loss to follow-up:
1 5
20%;
6 5
>
20%;
2 5
not available. Missing data:
1 5
reported and quantified, method of handling described;
6 5
reported and quantified, method of handling not described;
2 5
not reported.
Information Bias
Standardization determinant:
1 5
according to protocol, well described;
6 5
according to protocol; –
5
no protocol. Standardization outcome:
1 5
according to protocol, well described;
6 5
according
to protocol;
2 5
no protocol.
Confounding
Confounding by indication:
1 5
no confounding by indication;
6 5
confounding present but well documented;
2 5
confounding poorly documented.
Overall Relevance
1 5
1 point;
6 5
0.5 point;
2
or ?
5
0 points. For priority items:
1 5
2 points;
6 5
1 point;
2
or ?
5
0 points. L
5
0–2.5 points; M
5
3–5.5 points; H
5
6 points.
Overall Validity
1 5
1 point;
6 5
0.5 point;
2
or ?
5
0 points. For priority items:
1 5
2 points;
6 5
1 point;
2
or ?
5
0 points. L
5
0–2.5 points; M
5
3–5.5 points; H
5
6 points
Laryngoscope 126: April 2016
Kerckhoffs et al.: A Review on Cholesteatoma Recidivism After CWU and CWD
107