Appendix Table D-1Study quality ratings: RCTs and non-randomized comparative studies

StudyStudy DesignAssembled comparable groupsMaintained comparable groupsMinimal follow up lossMeasurements equal, valid and reliableInterventions clearly definedImportant outcomes consideredAppropriate analysis of resultsFunding acknowledgedOverall rating
Sacco 2011RCTYes*****YesYesNo*YesYesYesNoFair
Malagari 2010RCTYesYesYesNo*YesYesNo**NoPoor
Morimoto 2010RCTYesYesNoNo*YesYesYesYesPoor
Brunello 2008RCTYesYesYesNo****YesYesYesYesGood
Lin 2005RCTYesYesYesNo*YesYesYesNoFair
Lin 2004RCTYesYesYesNo*YesYesYesNoFair
Recchia 2012NRCYesYesNo******NoNoYesYesNoPoor
Xu 2009NRCNoNoYesNo*YesYesYesNoPoor
Chok 2006NRCYesYesNo******No*YesYesYesYesPoor
Yu 2009NRCYesYesYesNo*YesYesYesNoPoor

This response reflects that the authors did not describe blinding to outcome(s) of interest.


This response reflects that the study did not analyze results according to intent-to-treat analysis.


This response reflects that the study did not report overall survival.


Outcomes could not be blinded due to different radiological signs produced by the two intervention techniques.


Randomization was done in an open fashion but known confounders between groups appear comparable.


Authors did not discuss follow up loss.

Abbreviations: RCT: Randomized controlled trial; NRC: Non-randomized comparative study

From: Appendix D, Evidence Tables

Cover of Local Therapies for Unresectable Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Local Therapies for Unresectable Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 114.
Belinson S, Yang Y, Chopra R, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.