. 2017 Feb 24;20(2):94–98. doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.06.012

Table 2.

Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) form in the meta-analysis comparing LIFEF and ORIF.

Authors	Year	Criteria												Total
Authors	Year	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Total
Davidovitch et al¹⁵	2011	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	19
Duan et al²³	2014	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	1	1	1	2	1	17
Guo et al²⁰	2015	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	21
Harris et al²¹	2006	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	19
Huang²⁵	2013	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	18
Pan²⁴	2013	2	0	1	1	0	2	2	1	1	1	2	1	14
Richards et al¹²	2012	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	20
Xiao et al²²	2005	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	15

The criteria included the following items: (1) a clearly stated aim; (2) inclusion of consecutive patients; (3) prospective data collection; (4) endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study; (5) unbiased assessment of the study endpoint; (6) a follow-up period appropriate to the aims of the study; (7) <5% loss to follow-up; (8) prospective calculation of the sample size; (9) an adequate control group; (10) contemporary groups; (11) baseline equivalence of groups; (12) adequate statistical analyses. Items were scored as follows: 0 (not reported); 1 (reported but inadequate); or 2 (reported and adequate). The ideal global score for comparative studies was 24.