SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with open
thoracotomy for the management of chest trauma: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Na Wu1, 2 *, Long Wu1, 2 * Chongying Qiu1, 2, Zubin Yu3, Ying Xiang1, 2, Minghao
Wang 4, Jun Jiang 4 #, Yafei Li1, 2 #
1
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military
Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People’s Republic of China
2
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-based Medicine, Third Military
Medical University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
3
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical
University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
4
Breast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University,
Chongqing 400038, People’s Republic of China
*
These authors contributed equally to this work.
#
These authors jointly directed the project.
Correspondence:
Yafei Li
Ph.D.
Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military
Medical University, Chongqing 400038, People’s Republic of China
E-mail: liyafei2008@hotmail.com
Telephone: +86 23 68752293
Supplementary Table 1. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment score scale
Item
Score
NOS score scale for cohort studies†
Selection
(1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort
Truly representative of the average status in the community
1
Somewhat representative of the average status in the community
1
Selected group of users eg nurses, volunteers
0
No description of the derivation of the cohort
0
(2) Selection of the non exposed cohort
Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort
1
Item
Score
Drawn from a different source
0
No description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort
0
(3) Ascertainment of exposure
Secure record (eg surgical records)
1
Structured interview
1
Written self report
0
No description
0
(4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study
Yes
1
No
0
Comparability
(1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis
Study controls for the most important factor
1
Study controls for any additional factor
1
Outcome
(1) Assessment of outcome
Independent blind assessment
1
Record linkage
1
Self report
0
No description
0
(2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?
Yes
1
No
0
(3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts
†
Complete follow up - all subjects accounted for
1
Subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias
1
Follow up rate is low and no description of those lost
0
No statement
0
A study can be awarded a maximum of one score for each numbered item within the
Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two scores can be given for
Comparability.
Supplementary Table 2. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of included cohort studies
Selection
First author
Comparability
Outcome
Representativeness of
Selection of the non
Ascertainment of
Demonstration that
Comparability of
Assessment of
Was follow-up long
Adequacy of follow
Total
the exposed cohort
exposed cohort
exposure
outcome of interest
cohorts on the basis
outcome
enough for outcomes
up of cohorts
score
was not present at
of the design or
start of study
analysis
to occur
Lian A
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
6
Ben-Nun A
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Lu H
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Yu H
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Yuan K
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Yang L
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Huang S
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Lu T
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Liu W
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Yu X
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Xie X
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Li Y
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Wang Y
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Samiatina D
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Supplementary Table 3. Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment results of included RCTs
First author
Random sequence
Allocation concealment
generation
Blinding of participants
Blinding of outcome
and personnel
assessment
Incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting
Other bias
Long C
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Li F
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Liao F
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Li G
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Chen J
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Jiang J
High risk
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Hao Q
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Zhao Q
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Hu W
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Li X
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Cao Y
Low risk
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Peng Y
Unclear
Unclear
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Articles identified through database searching (n=2131)
(390 English, 1639 Chinese and 102 in other languages)
Articles excluded based on titles and abstracts (n=1540)
Articles
(275 English, 1169 Chinese and 96 in other languages)
references (n=1)
retrieved
by
Complete article analyzed (n=592)
(116 English, 470 Chinese and 6 in other languages)
566 articles without proper comparison, duplicate
publication or laparoscopy excluded
26 articles included in meta-analysis
Supplementary Figure 1. Flow-chart of the searching process
cross-