Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assement of eligible literatures

From: Integrative and quantitive evaluation of the efficacy of his bundle related pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: a meta-analysis

Quality Assesment

Cross-over study

Author

Prospective design

Clear definition of study population

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Eraldo, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Randomized

Domenico, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Not clear

Francesco, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Not clear

Gianni, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Not clear

Mads, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Randomized

Domenico, et al.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stable

No

No

Not clear

Observational study

Author

Study design

Clear definition of study population

Clear definition of different pacing modes

Clear definition of related endpoints

Blindness to a certain pacing mode

Representativeness of the study population

Comparability between case and control groups

 

Kenneth, et al.

Observational

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not clear

Yes

Yes

  1. (1) whether the cross-over design was suitable for the permanent pacing condition; (2) were two different pacing conditions stable or fluctuating; (3) was there existing an elution time between two stages of trial; (4) did participants drop out after the first treatment, and not receive the second treatment; (5) is it clear that the order of receiving treatments was randomized