Table 3.

Quality Assessment of Publications According to Modified Jadad Scoring System [45]

		Two points each if yes for these three major criteria			One point each if yes for these minor criteria
Study, year	Total score	Randomized	Blinded	Description of animal drop-outs	Clear study objective defined	Clear outcome measurements disclosure and explanation	Criteria for inclusion/exclusion of animals	Sample size calculation	Sample size justification	Clear explanation of method for IDD induction	Clear explanation of method for MSC injection	Clear explanation of assessment methods
Acosta et al., 2011 [62]	8	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Allon et al., 2010 [51]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Bendtsen et al., 2011 [47]	9	2	0	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1
Crevensten et al., 2004 [48]	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
Feng et al., 2011 [53]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Ganey et al., 2009 [65]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Ghosh et al., 2012 [64]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Hee et al., 2010 [46]	13	2	2	2	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
Henriksson et al., 2009 [61]	5	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1
Hiyama et al., 2008 [63]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Ho et al., 2008 [57]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Jeong et al., 2009 [50]	4	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1
Jeong et al., 2010 [40]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Miyamoto et al., 2010 [66]	5	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1
Sakai et al., 2003 [55]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Sakai et al., 2005 [56]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Sakai et al., 2006 [54]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Serigano et al., 2010 [60]	8	0	2	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Sobajima et al., 2008 [58]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Vadalà et al., 2011 [42]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Wei et al., 2009 [52]	5	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1
Yang et al., 2009 [49]	6	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Yang et al., 2010 [59]	8	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1
Zhang et al., 2005 [37]	8	2	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1

The higher the total score, the higher the study quality. Scores of 11–13, excellent; 8–10, good; 5–7, fair; 0–4, poor.