Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodologic index for non-randomized studies

From: Are complications related to the perineal post on orthopaedic traction tables for surgical fracture fixation more common than we think? A systematic review

Study

Clearly stated aim

Inclusion of consecutive patients

Prospective collection of data

Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study

Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint

Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study

Loss to follow-up less than 5%

Prospective calculation of the study size

Additional criteria in the case of comparative study

Overall Score

First author (year)

Adequate control group

Contemporary groups

Baseline equivalence of groups

Adequate statistical analyses

Aprato et al. (2021)

2

2

0

2

0

1

2

0

2

1

2

2

16/24

Brumback et al. (1992)

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

2

2

0

1

17/24

Kao et al. (1993)

1

0

0

2

0

1

2

0

6/16

Mallet et al. (2005)

2

2

0

2

0

2

1

0

2

2

2

2

17/24

Parulekar et al. (2021)

0

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

8/16

Peterson et al. (1985)

0

2

0

2

0

2

0

0

8/16

Rajbabu et al. (2007)

0

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

8/16

Coelho et al. (2008)

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

10/16

Rose et al. (2007)

2

2

2

2

0

0

2

0

10/16

Hofmann et al. (1982)

2

0

0

2

0

1

2

0

7/16

Summary Statistics

        

Mean ± SD (range) global score for 3 comparative studies = 16.7 ± 0.6 (16– 17)

Mean ± SD global score for 7 noncomparative studies = 8.1 ± 1.5 (6–10)

  1. The items on the MINORS are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The maximum global score is 16 for noncomparative studies and 24 for comparative studies. “–“ denotes MINORS criteria that was not applicable for appraisal