Table 6.

Quality assessment of studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study	Clearly Stated Aim	Consecutive Patients Inclusion	Prospective Collection of Data	Endpoints Appropriate	Unbiased Assessment of the Study Endpoint	Follow-up Period Appropriate to the Aim of the Study	Loss to Follow up Less than 5%	Prospective Calculation of the Study Size	Total Score
Atar et al., 2013 [14]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Greif et al., 2013 [15]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Kovacic et al., 2012 [16]	1	2	0	1	2	0	0	0	6
Mayer et al., 2007 [11]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Mitsutake et al., 2007 [12]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Okada et al., 2013 [19]	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	13
Tanaka et al., 2012 [13]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Lai et al., 2015 [10]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10
Maragiannis et al., 2015 [17]	2	1	2	2	2	0	0	0	9
Qing et al., 2015 [18]	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	10

Evaluation of meta-analysis studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) [22]. Elements are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate), or 2 (reported and adequate).