Table 1.
Quality assessment and study design
| Reference | Study design | Number HALS versus LAC | Randomization? | Treatment allocation concealed? | Eligibility criteria specified? | Patient blinded? | Outcome assessor blinded? | Care provider blinded? | Groups similar at baseline? | Follow-up? | Intention to treat? | Similar nontrial treatment? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HALS Study Group♦ [12] | RCT | 22 vs. 18 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | ± | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Hassan♦ [13] | non-RCT | 109 vs. 149 | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Segmental colectomy | ||||||||||||
| Targarona [14] | RCT | 27 vs. 27 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Chang [15] | non-RCT | 66 vs. 85 | No | No | No | No | No | No | ± | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Yano [16] | non-RCT | 5 vs. 8 | No | No | No | No | No | No | Not stated | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Lee [17] | non-RCT | 21 vs. 21 | No | No | No | No | No | No | ± | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Anderson [18] | non-RCT | 98 vs. 17 | No | No | No | No | No | No | ± | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Ringley♦ [19] | non-RCT | 22 vs. 18 | No | No | No | No | No | No | ± | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tjandra♦ [20] | non-RCT | 32 vs. 31 | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Total (procto)colectomy | ||||||||||||
| Nakajima [21] | non-RCT | 12 vs. 11 | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Rivadeneira [22] | non-RCT | 10 vs. 13 | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Boushey♦ [23] | non-RCT | 17 vs. 52 28 vs. 33 | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Not stated |
| Polle [24] | non-RCT | 30 vs. 35 | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Compliance (%) | 1017 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 100 | 100 | 38 | |
HALS: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, LAC: laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, RCT: randomized controlled trial, ♦excluded from the meta-analysis