Table 2.

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials

Item	Chin et al. 2007 [8]	Kim et al. 2007 [25]	Kolisek et al. 2007 [27]	Shen et al. 2007 [39]	Tashiro et al. 2007 [40]	Chotanaphuti et al. 2008 [9]	Han et al. 2008 [15]	Lüring et al. 2008 [32]	Karachalios et al. 2008 [20]	Kashyap & van Ommeren 2008 [22]	Wohlrab et al. 2009 [47]	Juosponis et al. 2009 [19]	Karpman & Smith [21]
1. Was there clear concealment of allocation?	3	1	3	1	1	1	0	3	3	0	1	3	1
2. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1
3. Were the outcomes of trial participants who withdrew or excluded after allocation described and included in an intention-to-treat analysis?	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1
4. Were the treatment and control groups adequately described at entry, and if so were the groups well matched or appropriate covariate adjustment made?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
5.Were the healthcare workers/ surgeons experienced in both interventions prior to the start of the trials?	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0
6. Were the care programs other than trial options identical?	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1
7.Were the outcome measures clearly defined in the text with a definition of any ambiguous terms encountered?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
8. Were the outcome assessors blind to assignment status?	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
9. Was the timing of outcome measures appropriate?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
10.Was followup active with the trial participants being called back or approached for assessment at set times or passive?	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
11.Was loss to followup reported, and if so were less than 5% of trial participants lost to followup?	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1
12.Were the authors able to provide supplementary details of the trial in addition to published data?	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	11	9	8	10	7	7	11	12	11	7	5	10	10