Table 2.
Criteria for risk-of-bias assessment (scored as ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘inconclusive’ or ‘not applicable’)
| Criteria for ‘yes’ | |
|---|---|
| Key criteria | |
| Clear study objective (B) | Goal of the study mentioned and motivated |
| Criteria for inclusion explicit (B) | Inclusion criteria mentioned |
| Fractures appropriately described (B) | Classification system and radiological tools used mentioned |
| Distinction type II/III appropriate (B) | Classification system and radiological tools used mentioned |
| Mean age (range) (B) | Mean age and age range reported or computable |
| Selection bias ruled out | Methods for patient selection and inclusion mentioned |
| Mean follow-up (range) (R) | Follow-up data reported or computable |
| Surgical treatment(s) specified (B) | Types of performed surgical interventions described |
| Conservative treatment(s) specified (B) | Types of performed conservative interventions described |
| Clear criteria for measuring outcomes (B) | Outcome measures mentioned |
| Clinically relevant outcomes (e.g. NDI, Smiley-Webster Scale, CSOQ) (B) | Clinical outcome systematically evaluated |
| When clinical outcome reported: Is pre-treatment neurol status stated (B) | Pre-treatment status reported for comparison to post-treatment status |
| Results for surgical/conservative treatment separately given (R) | If applicable; results for treatments separately reported |
| Selective loss-to-follow-up ruled out (R), scored as: ‘yes’ (2 pt) ‘no, l.t.f.u. <20 %, but may not be a selective’ (1 pt) ‘no, l.t.f.u. >20 %’ (0 pt) → exclusion criterium ‘too little information/not described’ (0 pt) |
Number of patients lost to follow-up reported including its causes |
| Other criteria | |
| Valid statistical analysis undertaken (R) | Statistical analyses carried out; if impossible: ‘NA’ |
| Number of men and women given (B) | Gender distribution of included patients reported or extractable |
| Clinical evaluation independent of treating physician (R) | Evaluation carried out by independent party |
| Radiological evaluation independent and blinded to clinical results (R) | Evaluation carried out by independent party |
| Independence of investigators stated (R) | Independence specifically stated (no vested interest) |
| Quantification of outcomes (R), scored as: ‘yes, >5 scale-classification (3 pt) ‘yes, <5 scale-classification (2 pt) ‘yes, descriptive’(1 pt) ‘no’ (0 pt) ‘too little information’ (0 pt) |
Categorized according to the scale used for outcome measures |
B Concerning baseline data
R Concerning results