Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk of bias assessment of included studies

From: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced myocarditis in cancer patients: a case report and review of reported cases

First author Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Risk of bias
  Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N  
Doms [7]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Esfahani [8]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Salem [9]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Matzen [10] X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Läubli [11]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Zimmer [12] X   X   X    X X   X   X   Moderate
Behling [13]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Semper [14] X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Mahmood [15]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Jain [16]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Liu [17]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Frigeri [18]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Norwood [19]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Arangalage [20]   X X   X   X X X   X    X High
Yogasundaram [21]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Tay [22]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Tadokoro [23]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Gibson [24]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Guiney [25]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Osnat [26]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Mehta [27]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Reuben [28]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Tajmir-Riahi [29]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Berg [30]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Samara [31]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Khoury [32]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Katsume [33]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Yanase [34]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Reddy [35]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Ganatra [36]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Fukusawa [37]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Heinzerling [71] Case 1,5 & 8 X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Imai [38]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Johnson [39] Case 1 & 2   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Nasr [40]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Rota [41] Case 1 & 2   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Yamaguchi [42]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Chen [43]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Nierstedt [44]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Christina [45]   X X   X     X   X   X   High
Copeland-Halperin [46]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Gallegos [47]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Inayat [48]   X X   X   X   X   X     Moderate
Lopez [49] Case 1   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Lopez [49] Case 2   X X   X    X X   X    X High
Martinez-Calle [50]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Monge [51]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Sakai [52]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Balanescru [53] Case 1 X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Balanescru [53] Case 2 & 3 X   X   X   X   X   X    X Moderate
Guo [54] Case 1 & 3 X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Guo [54] Case 2 & 5 X   X   X    X X   X   X   Moderate
Bukamur [55]   X X   X    X X   X    X High
Agrawal [56] Case 1,2 & 3 X   X   X   X   X   X   X   Low
Agrawal [56] Case 4 X   X   X    X X   X    X High
Agrawal [56] Case 5 X   X   X   X   X   X    X Moderate
Arora [57] Case 1,2,3,7   X X   X    X X   X    X High
Arora [57] Case 4   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Arora [57] Case 8   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Xing [58]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Kimura [59]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Fazel [60]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Hardy [61]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Saibil [62]   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Ansari-Gilani [63]Case 1& 2   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Ansari-Gilani [63] Case 3   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
McDowall [64]   X X   X   X   X   X   X   Moderate
Shah [65] X   X   X    X X   X    X High
Joseph [66] X   X   X    X X   X    X High
Zhang [67] X   X   X    X X   X    X High
Konstantina [68] Case 1   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Konstantina [68] Case 2   X X   X   X   X   X    X High
Wang [69]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
von Itzstein [70]   X X   X    X X   X   X   High
Total:
87 cases
20 67 67   67   59 29 87   87   62 25 Low risk: 11
Moderate risk: 38
Moderate risk: 38
  1. Y: yes, N: no, Q: question
  2. Question 1: Does the patient(s) represent(s) the whole experience of the investigator (centre) or is the selection method unclear to the extent that other patients with similar presentation may not have been reported?
  3. Question 2: Was the exposure adequately ascertained?
  4. Question 3: Was the outcome adequately ascertained?
  5. Question 4: Were other alternative causes that may explain the observation ruled out?
  6. Question 5: Was there a challenge/re-challenge phenomenon?
  7. Question 6: Was there a dose–response effect?
  8. Question 7: Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?
  9. Question 8: Is the case(s) described with sufficient details to allow other investigators to replicate the research or to allow practitioners make inferences related to their own practice?