33 2 Table 2. MINORS assessment tool Items Author 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total % 1. Agarwal et al. (2014) 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/16 63 2. Bekiroglu et al. (2011) 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 15/24 63 3. Devine et al. (2001) 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/16 56 4. Fang et al. (2013) 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 14/24 58 5. Fang et al. (2014) 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11/16 69 6. Ghai et al. (2021) 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 18/24 75 7. Gu et al. (2021) 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 18/24 75 8. Hoene et al. (2021) 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/16 56 9. Larson et al. (2021) 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 16/24 67 10. W. Li et al. (2013) 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/16 56 11. W. Li et al. (2016) 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 17/24 71 12. X. Li et al. (2016) 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/16 63 13. Ochoa et al. (2020) 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 13/24 54 14. Rogers et al. (2004) 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 17/24 71 15. Rogers et al. (2020) 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/16 63 16. Sakthivel et al. (2017) 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 13/24 54 17. Seferin et al. (2020) 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 16/24 67 18. Soares et al. (2018) 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/16 56 19. Vakil et al. (2012) 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7/16 44 20. Vora et al. (2017) 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11/16 69 21. Wu et al. (2020) 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 18/24 75 22. Yan et al. (2017) 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 18/24 75 23. Yang et al. (2014) 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/16 56 24. Yuan et al. (2016) 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 15/24 63 25. Yue et al. (2018) 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 16/24 67 26. Zhang et al. (2013) 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 18/24 75 27. Zhang et al. (2020) 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10/16 63 Items: 1. A clearly stated aim. 2. Inclusion of consecutive patients. 3. Prospective collection of data. 4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study. 5. Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint. 6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study. 7. Loss to follow-up less than 5%. 8. Prospective calculation of the study size. Additional criteria in case of comparative study: 9. An adequate control group. 10. Contemporary groups. 11. Baseline equivalence of groups. 12. Adequate statistical analyses. The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The total ideal score being 16 for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies. N/A= not applicable
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw