Table 5.

MINORS score

	Clearly stated aim	Inclusion of consecutive patients	Prospective data collection	Endpoints appropriate to study aim	Unbiased assessment of study endpoint	Follow-up period appropriate to study aim	< 5% lost to follow-up	Prospective calculation of study size	Adequate control group	Contemporary groups	Baseline equivalence of groups	Adequate statistical analyses	Total
Mussi et al. [6]	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13
Burtenshaw et al. [7]	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	2	1	0	17
Wilkinson et al. [33]	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Bonvalot et al. [16]	2	1	0	2	1	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	18
Bertani et al. [20]	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	11
Turner et al.[8]	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	2	1	2	19
Yabanoglu et al. [29]	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Smith et al. [30]	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Cates [31]	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13
Stojadinovic 2001	2	1	2	2	1	1	2	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Wilkinson 2014	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15
Desurmont 2015	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	0	16
Netto 2018	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	17
Zenzri 2020	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Kumar 2009	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	10
Yalav 2020	2	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	11
Pencavel 2010	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	12
Crago 2013	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	20
Xiao 2020	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	10
Walter 2017	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	14
Quast 2016	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15
Wheeler 2012	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	10
Lahat 2009	1	2	1	2	1	2	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	11

The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score being 16 for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies [27]