Table 3 Classification of case series according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist sub-items
Item No | Checklist item description | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n*/N† | % | n*/N† | % | n*/N† | % | n‡ | ||
1 | Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
2 | Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series? | 2/3 | 66.7% | 1/3 | 33.3% | – | – | – |
3 | Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series? | 2/3 | 66.7% | 1/3 | 33.3% | – | – | – |
4 | Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants? | – | – | 3/3 | 100.0%$ | – | – | – |
5 | Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
6 | Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
7 | Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
8 | Were the outcomes or follow up results of cases clearly reported? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
9 | Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information? | 3/3 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
10 | Was statistical analysis appropriate? | – | – | 3/3 | 100.0%$ | – | – | – |