JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (A) (n= 9 studies; 7 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts)

Perez et al. (2020)

Nori et al. (2020)

Chowdhary et al.

Sharifipour et al.
Ramadan et al.

Amarsy et al.

Cataldo et al.

Razazi et al.

Tiri et al.
(2020)

(2020)

(2020)

(2020)

(2020)

(2020)

(2020)
1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from
N/A N/A Yes Yes Unclear Unclear No Yes N/A
the same population?

2. Were the exposures measured similarly to

assign people to both exposed and unexposed Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes
groups?

3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and

Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?

4. Were confounding factors identified? Yes Yes Unclear Yes No No No No Yes

5. Were strategies to deal with confounding

N/A Yes Unclear No No No Yes No Yes
factors stated?

6. Were the groups/participants free of the

outcome at the start of the study (or at the Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes
moment of exposure)?
 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?

8. Was the follow up time reported and sufficient

Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes No Yes Yes
to be long enough for outcomes to occur?

9. Was follow up complete, and if not, were the

reasons to loss to follow up described and Yes Yes N/A N/A No Yes No No Yes
explored?

10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow

N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A No N/A N/A
up utilized?

11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Yes

JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (B) (n= 9 studies; 6 retrospective and 3 prospective cohorts)

Martinez-Guerra
Simmonds et al.
Posterero et al.

Baskaran et al.

Kokkoris et al.
Khurana et al.
Grasselli et al.
Moretti et al.

Karruli et al.

et al. (2021)
Gomez-
(2021)

(2021)

(2021)

(2021)

(2021)

(2021)

(2021)

(2021)
1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No
the same population?

2. Were the exposures measured similarly to

assign people to both exposed and unexposed Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes
groups?
3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and
Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?

4. Were confounding factors identified? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

5. Were strategies to deal with confounding

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
factors stated?

6. Were the groups/participants free of the

outcome at the start of the study (or at the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
moment of exposure)?

7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and

Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?

8. Was the follow up time reported and sufficient

Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes
to be long enough for outcomes to occur?

9. Was follow up complete, and if not, were the

reasons to loss to follow up described and N/A N/A Yes N/A No No Yes No No
explored?

10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow

N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No No
up utilized?

11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (C) (n= 3 studies; 2 retrospective and 1 prospective cohort)

Rica et al. (2021)

Llopis-Pastor et

Cultrera et al.
Suarez-de-la-

al. (2021)

(2021)
1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from
Yes N/A Yes
the same population?

2. Were the exposures measured similarly to

assign people to both exposed and unexposed Yes N/A Yes
groups?

3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and

Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?

4. Were confounding factors identified? No Yes Unclear

5. Were strategies to deal with confounding

No Unclear Unclear
factors stated?

6. Were the groups/participants free of the

outcome at the start of the study (or at the Yes Yes Yes
moment of exposure)?

7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and

Yes Yes Yes
reliable way?
8. Was the follow up time reported and sufficient
Unclear Yes Yes
to be long enough for outcomes to occur?

9. Was follow up complete, and if not, were the

reasons to loss to follow up described and No Yes N/A
explored?

10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow

No N/A N/A
up utilized?

11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Yes

JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Control Studies (n= 3 studies; 3 retrospective case control)

Baiou et al. (2021)

Bentivegna et al.
Bogossian et al.
(2020)

(2021)
1. Were the groups comparable other than the presence of
Unclear Yes Yes
disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls?

2. Were cases and controls matched appropriately? Yes Yes Unclear

3. Was the same criteria used for identification of cases and

Yes Yes Yes
controls?

4. Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable

Yes Yes Yes
way?

5. Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and

Yes Yes Yes
controls?

6. Were confounding factors identified? Yes Yes Yes

7. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? Yes Yes Yes

8. Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable

Yes Yes Yes
way for cases and controls?

9. Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be

Yes Yes Yes
meaningful?

10. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Yes

6
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (n= 1 study; retrospective cohort)

Guisado-Gil et al.
(2020)
1. Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the
‘effect’ (i.e. there is no confusion about which variable Yes
comes first)?

2. Were the participants included in any comparisons

Yes
similar?

3. Were the participants included in any comparisons

receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or Yes
intervention of interest?

4. Was there a control group? Yes

5. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both

Yes
pre and post the intervention/exposure?

6. Was follow up complete and if not, were differences

between groups in terms of their follow up adequately Yes
described and analyzed?

7. Were the outcomes of participants included in any

Yes
comparisons measured in the same way?

8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? Yes

9. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes

7
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series (n= 4 studies; retrospective observational studies)

Montrucchio et al.
Garcia-Meniño et
Mo et al. (2021)

Mady et al.
al. (2020)

(2020)

(2020)
1. Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series? Yes No Yes Yes

2. Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way

Unclear Yes Yes Yes
for all participants included in the case series?

3. Were valid methods used for identification of the

Yes Yes Yes Yes
condition for all participants included in the case series?

4. Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of

Yes Yes Yes Yes
participants?

5. Did the case series have complete inclusion of

Yes Yes Yes No
participants?

6. Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the

Yes Yes Yes Yes
participants in the study?

7. Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the

Yes Yes Yes Yes
participants?

8. Were the outcomes or follow up results of cases clearly

Yes Yes Yes Yes
reported?

9. Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s)

Yes Yes Yes Yes
demographic information?

10. Was statistical analysis appropriate? Yes N/A Yes Yes

8
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports (n= 3 studies)

Posteraro et al.

Walpole et al.

Perrotta et al.
(2020)

(2020)

(2021)
1. Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly
Yes Yes Yes
described?

2. Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented

Yes N/A No
as a timeline?

3. Was the current clinical condition of the patient on

Yes Yes Yes
presentation clearly described?

4. Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the

Yes Yes Yes
results clearly described?

5. Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly

Yes Yes Yes
described?

6. Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly

Yes Yes Yes
described?

7. Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events

Yes Yes Unclear
identified and described?

8. Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? Yes Yes Yes

9
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cross Sectional Studies (n= 6 studies; 3 cross sectional studies and
3retrospective studies)

Pascale et al. (2021)

Contou et al. (2020)
Salehi et al. (2020)

Mahmoudi et al.

Magnasco et al.
Li et al.
(2020)

(2021)
(2020)
1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
sample clearly defined?

2. Were the study subjects and the

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
setting described in detail?

3. Was the exposure measured in a

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
valid and reliable way?

4. Were objective, standard criteria

used for measurement of the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
condition?

5. Were confounding factors

Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Unclear
identified?

6. Were strategies to deal with

Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Unclear
confounding factors stated?

7. Were the outcomes measured in a

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
valid and reliable way?

8. Was appropriate statistical analysis

Yes Unclear Yes Unclear Unclear Yes
used?

10