Skip to main content
. 2015 Jan;97(1):11–16. doi: 10.1308/003588414X13946184904008

Table 1.

Assessment of methodological quality

Baker, 198915 Weale, 199612 Downing, 200116 Witzleb, 200917 Teratani, 201018 Ji, 201219
Explicit standardised surgical technique described
Same implant for both groups NR NR
Same bearing size for both groups NR NR NR NR
Same rehabilitation protocol for both groups NR NR NR
Minimal loss to follow-up

✓ = robust methodology; ✗ = differences in methodology between the groups exist; NR = not recorded