Table 2.

Methodological appraisal of nRCTs.

	Criteria
Studies	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Total
	Clear aim	Inclusion of consecutive patients	Prospective data collection	Endpoints appropriate to the aim	Unbiased assessment of the endpoint	Follow-up period appropriate	Follow-up loss less than 5%	Prospective calculation of the study size	Adequate control group	Contemporary groups	Baseline equivalence of groups	Adequate statistical analyses
Fränkel and Fränkel (30)	1	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	2	0	0	1	10
Haydar and Enacar (33)	2	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	14
Cozza et al. (12)	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	20
Defraia et al. (14)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	16
Weinbach and Smith (37)	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	2	0	2	16
Freeman et al. (15)	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	18
Barbre and Sinclair (32)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	1	2	15
Kuster and Ingervall (35)	2	1	0	2	0	2	0	0	2	2	1	1	13
Işcan et al. (34)	2	0	0	2	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	2	10
Işcan and Sarisoy (40)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	2	2	2	17
Bazzucchi et al. (41)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	1	2	15
Albogha et al. (25)	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	21
Sankey et al. (42)	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	17
Baccetti et al. (16)	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	20
Schulz et al. (45)	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	18
Cinsar et al. (11)	2	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	14
Jacob et al. (24)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	16
Ngan et al. (36)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	16
Işcan et al. (43)	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	16

nRCT, non-randomized clinical trial.