Table 2. MINORS* literature quality evaluation form.

Study	Purpose of study	Coherence of patients included	Collection of expected date	Endpoint indicators appropriately reflect the purpose of study	Objective of endpoint indicators	Adequacy of follow-up time	Loss to follow-up rate less than 5%	Sample size evaluation	Inclusion criteria of control group	Parallel experiments at the same time	Baseline comparability between groups	Whether the statistical analysis is appropriate	MINORS score
Yamashita et al.	1	0	2	1	0	2	2	0	0	2	1	2	13
Deng et al.	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	0	0	1	2	2	16
Khullar et al.	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	1	1	2	16
Kodama et al.	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	17
Nishio et al.	1	2	2	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	2	2	20
Koike et al.	1	2	2	1	1	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	17
Chan et al.	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	19
Shao et al.	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	0	0	0	2	2	16
Saji et al.	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	23
Stamatis et al.	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	2	2	21

*, literature with a score of 0–8 was of low quality, 9–16 was of moderate quality, and 17–24 was of high quality. Literature with a MINORS score of less than 12 should not be included in the meta-analysis. MINORS, Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies.