Table 3.

Evaluation of methodological qualities of comparative included studies

Items/author*	[[7]]	[[19]]	[[20]]	[[21]]	[[22]]	[[8]]	[[23]]	[[25]]	[[33]]	[[34]]
Inclusion criteria	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0
Exclusion criteria	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Comparable demographics?	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Could the number of participating centres be determined?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Could the number of surgeons who participated be determined?	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1
Could the reader determine where the authors were on the learning curve for the reported procedure?	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0
Were diagnostic criteria clearly stated for clinical outcomes if required?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was the surgical technique adequately described?	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
Did they try to standardize the surgical technique?	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
Did they try to standardize perioperative care?	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Was the age and range given for patients in the Robotic group?	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1
Did the authors address whether there were any missing data?	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0
Was the age and range given for patients in the comparative group?	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1
Were patients in each group treated along similar timelines?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
The patients asking to enter the study, did they actually take part to it?	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Were drop-out rates stated?	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Were outcomes clearly defined?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were there blind assessors?	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Were there standardized assessment tools?	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Was the analysis by intention to treat?	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Score	12	9	10	9	10	10	7	12	15	9

Total score, 21; <8, poor quality; 8–14, fair quality; ≥15, good quality.

* Named by reference number and listed in chronological order.