Table 1.
Methodologic quality of included studies
| Score* | Authors | Year | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Eiskjaer et al. [7] | 1989 | (Parker and Gurusamy 2006 [21]) |
| 4 | Holt et al. [12] | 1994 | |
| 5 | Lennox and McLauchlan [17] | 1993 | |
| 3 | Gebhard et al. [10] | 1992 | |
| 4 | Lausten et al. [16] | 1987 | |
| 4 | Lo et al. [18] | 1994 | |
| 6 | Sonne-Holm et al. [23] | 1982 | 6 |
| 6 | Dorr et al. [5] | 1986 | 6 |
| 8 | Emery et al. [8] | 1991 | 8 |
| 6 | Khan et al. [14] | 2002 | |
| 2 | Foster et al. [9] | 2005 | |
| Branfoot (from Parker and Gurusamy [21]) | 2000 | 8 | |
| Harper (from Parker and Gurusamy [21]) | 1994 | 3 | |
| 4.7 | Average | 6.2 | |
| 6.9 | Average minus maximum† | 5.8 | |
* Based on Cochrane 12-point index for methodologic quality of clinical studies; scores on the left represent studies included in this report; those on the right are from the meta-analysis by Parker and Gurusamy [21]; †average of values in which the points given on the Cochrane index were subtracted from the total points possible; for the study by Holt et al., items 1 and 9 in the Cochrane index were not applicable.