Table 1.

Evaluation of the studies included in the meta-analysis according to the revised MINORS criteria Scoring

	Douek et al. [10]	Thill et al. [11]	Rubio et al. [12]	Pinero-Madrona et al. [13]	Ghilli et al. [14]	Houpeau et al. [15]	Nordic study
A clearly stated aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Inclusion of consecutive patientsa	1	1	2	2	2	1	2
Prospective collection of data	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Unbiased assessment of the study endpointb	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Follow-up period appropriate to the aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Loss to follow up less than 5 %c	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Prospective calculation of the study size	2	1	2	1	2	2	2
An adequate control group	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Contemporary groups	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Baseline equivalence of groups	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Adequate statistical analyses	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Total	23	22	24	23	24	23	24

Not reported:0, Reported but inadequate:1, Reported and adequate:2

^aNo exclusion or details about the reasons for exclusion

^bIf not blind, it has to be explained

^cIf important for primary endpoint